Trustee Landscape Quantitative Research - auto enrolment · Trustee Landscape Quantitative Research ... trustee boards and the role of training in enhancing board effectiveness. 1.2

Trustee Landscape Quantitative Research

A report on the 2015 Trustee Landscape research

Prepared for The Pensions Regulator

By OMB Research

October 2015

OMB Research, The Stables, Bradbourne House, East Malling, West Malling, Kent, ME19 6DZ

T. 01622 790900 E. [email protected] W. www.ombresearch.co.uk

Contents

1 Executive summary ............................................................................................. 1

1.1 Background ................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Overview of findings ...................................................................................... 1

2 Background & methodology ................................................................................. 5

2.1 Background ................................................................................................... 5

2.2 Methodology .................................................................................................. 6

3 Key Findings ...................................................................................................... 11

3.1 Types of trustees ......................................................................................... 11

3.2 Number of trustees on boards ..................................................................... 13

3.3 Trustee qualifications ................................................................................... 15

3.4 Trustee appointments .................................................................................. 16

3.5 Trustee board meetings ............................................................................... 18

3.6 Time spent on trustee duties and allocation of time between DB and DC issues in schemes with both DB and DC elements .............................................. 19

3.7 Chairs of trustees ........................................................................................ 22

3.8 Training & development ............................................................................... 25

3.9 Knowledge and skills of trustee boards ....................................................... 31

3.10 Managing relationships with advisors .......................................................... 38

3.11 Administrator reporting and attendance at board meetings ......................... 42

3.12 Main issues facing boards of trustees ......................................................... 43

3.13 Trustees’ ideas about raising standards of trustees .................................... 44

4 Annex A: Full data results .................................................................................. 45

4.1 Scheme and employer characteristics ......................................................... 45

4.2 Trustee and governance board background/characteristics ........................ 51

4.3 Training and development ........................................................................... 69

4.4 Use and review of external advisors and other services .............................. 77

4.5 Knowledge and skills ................................................................................... 92

4.6 Policy ......................................................................................................... 111

4.7 Open-ended closure questions .................................................................. 118

5 Annex B: Sample analysis ............................................................................... 120

OMB Research Trustee Landscape Research 2015 1

1 Executive summary

1.1 Background

This report summarises the results from the Trustee Landscape quantitative survey

carried out by OMB Research, an independent market research agency, on behalf of

The Pensions Regulator (the regulator).

While the regulator already provides education, guidance and tools to help trustees

perform their roles, today’s research is part of on-going work with the industry to

consider what more can be done to improve outcomes for savers and clarify duties

for those running or supporting schemes.

The main objective of the research was to examine the ability of pension scheme

trustees and their boards to fulfil effectively their roles and responsibilities in the

context of recent developments in the pensions environment. The survey comprised

816 telephone interviews with trustees from Defined Benefit (DB), Defined

Contribution (DC) and hybrid pension schemes with at least 12 members. The

research was conducted between March and May 2015.

By publishing the research, the regulator intends to stimulate constructive debate

about how it, Government and regulatory bodies, and the pensions industry at large,

can raise standards sufficiently to increase confidence amongst consumers that their

retirement savings are in high-quality, well-run schemes.

Following the findings from this quantitative survey, the regulator is currently

undertaking further work, analysis and research into two themes: the effective

operation of trustee boards and the role of training in enhancing board effectiveness.

1.2 Overview of findings

1.2.1 Trustee boards generally believed that their knowledge and skills are

good but they recognised some deficiencies

Trustees generally rated their trustee board positively on their level of knowledge.

Scores were highest for knowledge of the roles and responsibilities of trustees

(mean score of 8.1 out of 10), recovery plans and funding (8 out of 10) and

administration (7.3). Scores were lower for knowledge of pensions law (6.5 out of

10).

However, trustees effectively acknowledged gaps in their board’s knowledge in some

areas. They reported relatively high importance ratings alongside relatively low board

knowledge ratings for these aspects. The largest knowledge gaps were for

understanding of pension scheme investments, pensions law and the roles and

responsibilities of trustees.


Trustees also rated the board’s skills highly, particularly when it came to working

effectively as a board, assessing employer covenant and negotiating with employers

on funding (mean scores of 8.6 out of 10 in each case). Trustees were less confident

in the board’s ability to assess value for money in advisor, administration and

investment costs (means score of 7.6 to 7.7).

Respondents acknowledged some skills gaps also, namely being able to challenge

the advice of advisors and administrators and assessing value for money1.

Trustees reported that their boards rarely disagreed with their advisors, with 24%

never disagreeing and 58% rarely doing so.

1.2.2 Half of schemes with non-professional trustees did not believe that all of

these trustees had a level of Trustee Knowledge and Understanding

(TKU) that met the standard in the regulator’s TKU code of practice

Half (49%) of schemes with non-professional trustees believed that all of these

trustees had this requisite level of TKU, while half (51%) reported not all of their

trustees did. One in 20 (5%) reported that none have the required knowledge while

one in ten (10%) had not heard of the TKU code.

1.2.3 Trustees almost universally believe that they have sufficient training

opportunities, although many do not undertake formal training or have a

training plan in place

The vast majority of trustees (92%) believed that the training and development

opportunities for their non-professional trustees were sufficient. However, a much

smaller proportion (50%) of schemes reported that any of their non-professional

trustees had undertaken formal, structured training in the previous 12 months.

Just under half (45%) had a training plan in place for their trustees and three fifths

(59%) had a training log. But a third (32%) had neither of these.

Trustees reported that the majority of training was informal in nature, through the

trustee toolkit (71% of boards had used it in the last year), through advisers (e.g.

40% through a legal advisor) or in-house training (38%). A minority had used more

formal approaches such as the Pensions Management Institute (8%) or the National

Association of Pension Funds2 (13%).

1 On the basis that – like the identified knowledge gaps - these aspects were rated as more important

by trustees than the performance rating that trustees gave their trustee board. 2 The NAPF is now known as The Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association.


1.2.4 Large schemes displayed better governance than medium and small

schemes and schemes used for automatic enrolment were generally

better run

Large schemes held trustee board meetings most frequently with the majority (89%)

doing so at least quarterly, compared to half (48%) of medium schemes and a

quarter (25%) of small ones.

Trustees of large schemes typically spent more time on their duties than those in

medium and small schemes (a mean of 16, 12 and 9 days per year respectively).

They were also more likely to meet the standards set out in the TKU code (69%

reported that all trustees met this standard, compared to 51% for medium and 38%

for small schemes).

Self-reported knowledge and skills levels were highest for large schemes and lowest

for small ones for the majority of the areas rated. The greatest difference by scheme

size was for challenging advice from advisors, for example, large schemes gave

themselves an average skill rating of 8.5 out of 10 for challenging investment advice

and advisors, compared to 7.2 for small schemes.

The majority of large schemes (61%) had both a training plan and training log in

place while 5% had neither. In contrast, over half (57%) of small schemes had

neither.

Schemes used for automatic enrolment showed a higher level of engagement with

many aspects of scheme governance, such as having more frequent board

meetings, and have more formalised training in place for their trustees.

1.2.5 Trustee boards of DC only schemes were least likely to display good

governance and less emphasis was placed on the governance of the DC

element in schemes with both DB and DC elements

‘DC only’ scheme trustee boards reported they met least regularly, with 36% having

formal meetings every quarter (or more often) and 9% never holding board meetings.

They were also least likely to have a chair of trustees, with 19% not having one in

place and not planning to appoint one.

The mean number of days spent per trustee per year on their duties was also lowest

among this group (9 days), and half (49%) of ‘DC only’ schemes estimated that their

trustees spent less than 5 days per year on their duties.

Trustees in ‘DC only’ schemes were least likely to meet the TKU standards, with

25% of these schemes reporting that none of their trustees met these standards or

indicating that they were not aware of the TKU code.

In schemes with both DB and DC elements much more time was spent on DB issues

(ten days on average) compared to DC issues (two days).


1.2.6 Schemes with only professional trustees were more likely to have better

governance arrangements

Schemes with only professional trustees on average spent more time on their trustee

duties (46% of boards with only professional trustees spend ten or more days a year

versus 33% of boards with only non-professional trustees), and had better (self-

reported) knowledge of pensions law (a mean of 7.1 out of 10 vs. 6.2 for non-

professional only boards) and ability to assess the value for money of investment

advisors (a mean of 8.0 vs. 7.4).

1.2.7 Most schemes were unconstrained when appointing advisors

Almost all schemes (89%) employed external advisors such as auditors, legal

advisors, actuaries and investment managers. Reflecting this wide use, two-thirds

(63%) of schemes indicated that they were free to appoint advisors as and when

required, and most of the remainder (25%) were able to do so but had to be selective

due to cost considerations. One in ten (9%) reported that they could rarely or never

afford to appoint external advisors and these were much more likely to be small

schemes.


2 Background & methodology

2.1 Background

The pensions landscape is going through the greatest period of change in

generations:

While pensions assets remain heavily biased to DB schemes, owing to

automatic enrolment DC schemes now account for more active memberships

that DB schemes.

Market factors, in particular the low interest rate environment, pose

challenges for all scheme types.

By March 2015, over 5.2 million workers had been successfully automatically

enrolled since the reforms began in 2012, an increase of more than 2.2 million

workers from 2014. By 2018 the regulator will have helped hundreds of

thousands of small and micro employers through the automatic enrolment

process.

Trustees of DC pension schemes are subject to new legal requirements,

introduced in April this year, designed to drive up the quality of governance

and administration in workplace DC schemes and deliver good member

outcomes.

The government introduced in April this year a change to how members of DC

pension arrangements could access their pension savings by removing the

effective requirement to purchase an annuity.

In this context, the regulator commissioned research to examine the ability of

pension scheme trustees and their boards to fulfil effectively their roles and

responsibilities. More specifically, the research sought to better understand:

The characteristics of trustee boards and their members

How trustee boards operate

Training and development of trustees

The role and performance of trustee boards, in their own estimation

The relationship between trustee boards and their advisors and service

providers.

The survey also aimed to address these research objectives in relation to the

different segments of the scheme population (scheme type and size etc) and the

different segments of the trustee population (professional, non-professional etc).


2.2 Methodology

2.2.1 Sampling approach

The sample for this research was extracted from the regulator’s database and

consisted of 8,059 DB, DC and hybrid schemes with 12 or more members. It

included both single-employer schemes and non-associated multi-employer

schemes (commonly known as ‘master trusts’), and schemes that were open, closed

or in the process of winding-up. The sample was de-duplicated to ensure that each

organisation/trustee was not contacted more than once, and any records with

insufficient contact details (eg no telephone number) were also removed. This

sample processing stage resulted in a final sample of 6,378 schemes.

2.2.2 Fieldwork

Where an email address was provided on the sample, all potential respondents were

sent an introductory email prior to being telephoned to take part. This email

explained the purpose of the research, provided reassurances about its bona fide

and confidential nature and introduced OMB Research as an independent market

research agency that had been appointed by the regulator to conduct the survey.

Interviews took place between 16 March and 7 May 2015.

In total 816 interviews were completed. Fourteen interviews were with master trusts

while the remainder were with single-employer schemes. All respondents were

scheme trustees, with around half (46%) being the chair of the trustee board.

Interviews lasted an average of 25 minutes.

Due to the scale of the scope of the survey, it was split into two parts whereby half of

respondents were asked one set of questions while the other half answered a

different set of questions. In addition all respondents answered certain core survey

questions. Controls were put in place to ensure the sample of schemes in both

questionnaire sets were matched.

Each respondent was asked about a pre-specified pension scheme, and to qualify

for interview they had to be a trustee for that scheme. Further screening questions

were included to ensure that respondents could identify the types of benefits offered

by their scheme.

All interviews were administered using CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone

Interviewing) by a team of experienced business-to-business interviewers.

2.2.3 Interview & weighting profile

A disproportionate stratified sampling approach was adopted, with smaller segments

over-sampled to generate enough interviews for sub-analysis by scheme size and


scheme type. Figure 2.2.3.1 shows the number of interviews achieved with each

type of scheme, along with the total population3.

Figure 2.2.3.1 Interview numbers and population profile

Scheme Type Interviews Population

Number % Number %

Defined Contribution (DC)

Small (12-99 members) 160 20% 1,416 18%

Medium (100-999 members) 100 12% 424 5%

Large (1000+ members) 56 7% 181 2%

Hybrid with DC

Small (12-99 members) 20 2% 91 1%

Medium (100-999 members) 41 5% 414 5%

Large (1000+ members) 80 10% 470 6%

DB/Other hybrid

Small (12-99 members) 130 16% 1,853 23%

Medium (100-999 members) 140 17% 2,345 29%

Large (1000+ members) 89 11% 865 11%

Total 816 100% 8,059 100%

The final data was weighted to the overall scheme universe (as shown in the right

hand columns in Figure 2.2.3.1 above) to account for the disproportionate sampling

approach.

A probability weighting approach was employed drawing on a range of known

scheme characteristics (size, status, benefit type, number of trustees, type of

trustees, etc). The resulting weights were ‘trimmed’ to adjust any particularly low/high

weighting factors (ie where schemes with particular characteristics were significantly

over-/under-represented in the achieved sample). On this basis the lowest weight

applied was 0.34 and the highest was 2.38.

2.2.4 Reporting conventions

Throughout this report all the results shown are weighted. However, the base sizes

shown in the various charts and tables refer to the unweighted base.

Unless otherwise stated, any differences reported between sub-groups are

statistically significant compared to the figure for total sample at the 95% confidence

level.

3 The type/size classifications shown in Figure 2.2.3.1 refer to how each scheme was recorded on the

Pensions Regulator’s database. In some cases schemes classified themselves differently during the survey (e.g. moved from small to medium based on membership numbers).


2.2.5 Scheme profile

Respondents were asked a series of detailed questions about the types of benefits

offered by their scheme. This data was used to allocate each scheme to one of five

categories, based on the scheme benefit(s) offered.

Figure 2.2.5.1 shows the proportion of schemes allocated to each benefit type. The

majority of schemes were ‘DB only’ (35%) or ‘DC only’ (29%).

The survey findings are shown by these categories in Annex A, with key differences

by scheme type pointed out in the main body of the report.

Figure 2.2.5.1 Types of benefits offered

Base: All respondents (816)

Small schemes were comparatively more likely to be ‘DC only’ (36%) and large

schemes were more likely to be DB with DC elements (25% were ‘DB with DC AVCs’

and 24% were ‘DB with DC section’).

DB only35%

DB with DC AVCs

only18%

True hybrid

4%

DB with DC

section14%

DC only29%

Base: All respondents (816)


Figure 2.2.5.2 Types of benefits offered – by scheme size

Size

Small

(12-99)

Medium

(100-999)

Large

(1000+)

Base: All respondents 310 294 212

DB only 40% 34% 26%

DB with DC AVCs only 10% 23% 25%

True hybrid4 3% 5% 4%

DB with DC section 11% 11% 24%

DC only 36% 27% 20%

Other 0% 0% 1%

’DB only’ and ‘DB with DC AVCs’ schemes were more likely to be closed to new

members (50%), whereas ‘DC only’ schemes were most likely to be open (49%).

Figure 2.2.5.3 Scheme status – by benefit type

Type

DB only DB w/ DC

AVCs True

hybrid DB w/ DC section

DC only

Base: All respondents 222 127 32 109 324

Open 8% 12% 34% 33% 49%

Closed 50% 50% 31% 41% 23%

Paid Up 38% 33% 35% 24% 19%

Winding Up 5% 5% 0% 2% 10%

A number of questions were also asked to determine the proportion of ‘relevant

multi-employer’ (RME) schemes. Schemes were classified as follows:

Single employer scheme only: Scheme does not offer benefits to multiple

employers

Multiple associated employer scheme: Scheme offers benefits to multiple

employers which are all part of a group of companies

Relevant non-associated employer scheme (RME): Scheme offers benefits

to ‘non-connected’ employers or promotes itself as a scheme that these

employers may join and does not (or will not) have distinct sections relating to

these employers governed by different trustees/managers

4 A scheme where each individual member accrues a benefit which includes elements of both DB and

DC, for example a money purchase scheme with a guaranteed minimum payment.


As shown in Figure 2.2.5.4 below, a small minority of schemes (4%) were classified

as ‘RME’.

Figure 2.2.5.4 Relevant multi-employer (RME) schemes

Base: All respondents (816, Don’t know 1%)

72%

23%

4%

Single employer scheme only

Multiple associated employer scheme

Relevant non-associated employer scheme (RME)


3 Key findings

This section of the report provides an overview of the key findings from the

quantitative survey. Full details of the responses to every individual survey question,

broken down by scheme size and type, are provided in Annex A of this report.

3.1 Types of trustees

The majority of schemes (72%) had non-professional trustees, with 63% having

employer-appointed and 58% having member-nominated trustees (ie many schemes

had a combination of both types of non-professional trustee).

Half of schemes (52%) had either professional or corporate trustees (34% corporate

and 24% professional).

Figure 3.1.1 Types of trustees


Figure 3.1.2 summarises the composition of the trustee board, showing the

proportion of schemes that had solely professional/corporate trustees, solely non-

professional trustees or a combination of the two. Schemes were more likely to have

only non-professional trustees (46%) than only professional/corporate ones (27%),

and a quarter of schemes (26%) had both types of trustee.

34%

24%

1%

63%

58%

1%

Corporate

Professional

Statutory independent/ other professional

Non-professional/lay employer-appointed

Non-professional/lay member-nominated

Other non-professional


52% have professional

and/or corporate

72% have non-professional (EAT

and/or MNT)


Figure 3.1.2 Types of trustees – professional / corporate and non-professional


Large schemes and those with just a single trustee were most likely to have

professional/corporate trustees. Small schemes and ‘DC only’ ones were least likely

to have both professional and non-professional trustees on the board.


Both26%

Justprofessional/

corporate27%

Justnon-professional

46%


3.2 Number of trustees on boards

The majority of schemes (57%) had between two and five trustees, and the mean

number reported was 3.0.

A third of schemes (31%) had just one trustee. However, most of these referred to

corporate trustee firms (ie with multiple directors effectively acting as trustees).

Figure 3.2.1 Number of trustees


31%

12%

25%

9%

10%

7%

3%

1%

1%

0%

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10


37%

12%

Mean trustees = 3.0

31%

20%


Large schemes were comparatively more likely to have 6 or more trustees (22%).

While they were also most likely to have just one trustee (54%), in most cases this

was a corporate trustee firm.

Figure 3.2.2 Number of trustees – by scheme size

Size

Small

(12-99)

Medium

(100-999)

Large

(1000+)


1 trustee 30% 19% 54%

2-3 trustees 54% 33% 6%

4-5 trustees 11% 32% 16%

6+ trustees 4% 16% 22%

Mean 2.4 3.6 3.0

The proportion with just one trustee was highest for ‘DC only’ schemes (41%) and

lowest for ‘DB only’ (21%). The mean number of trustees was also significantly lower

for ‘DC only’ schemes (2.5).

Figure 3.2.3 Number of trustees – by benefit type

Type

DB only DB w/ DC

AVCs True

hybrid5

DB w/ DC section

DC only


1 trustee 21% 31% 24% 37% 41%

2-3 trustees 45% 24% 38% 33% 37%

4-5 trustees 21% 28% 23% 17% 13%

6+ trustees 13% 15% 15% 14% 7%

Mean 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.0 2.5




3.3 Trustee qualifications

Respondents were asked about the relevant qualifications held by their trustees. As

shown in Figure 3.3.1, professional/corporate trustees were more likely to have

relevant qualifications, particularly related to pensions (41% compared to 9% of non-

professional trustees). A third (30%) of non-professional trustees had no relevant

qualifications, rising to 39% in ‘DC only’ schemes.

Figure 3.3.1 Trustee qualifications

Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know)

Professional (395, 8%), Non-professional (638, 3%)

Figure 3.3.2 shows the proportion of schemes that had any trustee holding each

qualification (either professional or non-professional trustees). Overall, two thirds

(66%) of schemes had trustees with a professional qualification related to finance or

investments. Other qualifications were less common, particularly in actuarial science

(16%), and 17% of schemes did not have any trustees with these qualifications.

Figure 3.3.2 Trustee qualifications – summary

Total

Base: All excluding don’t know trustee types 806

Finance or investments 66%

Practice of law 25%

Pensions 27%

Actuarial science 16%

None of these held by any trustee 17%

56%

29%

41%

22%

11%

61%

15%

9%

6%

30%

A professional qualification related to finance or investments (e.g. CIMA, CFA)

A degree or professional qualification related to the practice of law

A professional qualification related to pensions (e.g. PMI)

A degree or professional qualification related to actuarial science

None of these

Base: All respondents (Base, Don’t know)Professional (395, 8%), Non-professional (638, 3%)

Professional/ corporate

Non-professional


3.4 Trustee appointments

Respondents were asked whether any of their non-professional trustees had been

appointed in the past 12 months. A fifth of schemes (20%) with member-nominated

trustees (MNTs) had appointed one in this time frame, and this was also the case for

a similar proportion (18%) of those with employer-appointed trustees (EATs).

Figure 3.4.1 Appointment of new non-professional trustees

Schemes with newly appointed member-nominated trustees (MNTs) were asked

what they believed were their main motivations for becoming a trustee. As shown in

Figure 3.4.2, these individuals tended to be motivated by an interest in pensions

(49%) or a general willingness to help the employer (26%). Although technically

member-nominated, 10% indicated that these trustees had been co-opted or

volunteered by the management.

Figure 3.4.2 Main motivations of newly appointed MNTs

Base: All with newly appointed member-nominated trustees (114, Don’t know 5%)

Yes18%

Base: All with employer-appointed trustees (563, Don’t know 0%)

Yes20%

Base: All with member-nominated trustees (518, Don’t know 1%)

Member-nominated trustees appointed in the past 12 months? (All with MNTs)

Employer-appointed trustees appointed in the past 12 months? (All with EATs)

49%

26%

15%

13%

11%

10%

6%

4%

4%

Interested in pensions

Generally willing to help the employer where they can

Knowledgeable about pensions

Wanted to represent members / look after their interests

Have a job which is relevant to being a trustee

Co-opted or volunteered by management

Have time to take on this role

Personal development/career progression

Had previous/relevant experience

Base: All with newly appointed member-nominated trustees (114, Don’t know 5%)

Top mentions only (4%+)


Almost half (46%) of all the schemes that had made new MNT appointments in the

previous 12 months reported that they had more than one candidate for a single role.

Where there were multiple candidates for the role, schemes were asked to detail the

selection processes applied. As detailed in Figure 3.4.3 below, the most common

approach was a ballot (58%), followed by selection by existing trustees (31%).

Figure 3.4.3 Selection processes applied for MNT appointments (involving multiple candidates)

Base: All with >1 candidate for a single member-nominated role (56)

Despite the fact that over half (54%) of MNT appointments only involved a single

candidate, three quarters (73%) of schemes interviewed agreed that they had found

it relatively easy to find a suitable candidate for these roles.

Figure 3.4.4 Ease of finding a suitable MNT candidate

Base: All with newly appointed member-nominated trustees (114)

58%

31%

10%

7%

1%

11%

A ballot

Selection by existing trustees

Selection by member representative committees

Selection by pension management committees

Selection by trade unions

Other selection panels

Base: All with > 1 candidate for a single member-nominated role (56)

“It was relatively easy to find a suitable candidate who was willing to become a member nominated trustee”

Strongly agree25%

Agree

48%

Disagree20%

Strongly disagree

6%


3.5 Trustee board meetings

Trustees were asked how frequently the full trustee board had formal meetings.

Almost half (46%) said that the board met at least quarterly, but a fifth (20%) had

formal meetings annually or less frequently (including 4% that reported they had

never had a board meeting).

Figure 3.5.1 Frequency of trustee board meetings


As detailed in Figure 3.5.2, the larger the scheme the greater the frequency with

which the trustee board met. The majority (89%) of large schemes reported that the

full board met at least quarterly, compared to half of medium schemes (48%) and a

quarter of small schemes (25%). Small schemes were also the most likely to indicate

that they never had formal meetings.

Figure 3.5.2 Frequency of trustee board meetings – by scheme size

Size

Small

(12-99)

Medium

(100-999)

Large

(1000+)


Monthly 4% 1% 6%

Quarterly 21% 47% 82%

Six monthly 37% 41% 8%

Annually 25% 8% 0%

Less often 5% 1% 1%

Never 7% 1% 1%

3%

43%

33%

14%

3%

4%

At least monthly

At least quarterly

At least every six months

At least annually

Less frequently than annually

Have never had a trustee meeting



‘DC only’ scheme trustee boards also met less regularly, with only 36% having

formal meetings every quarter (or more often) and 9% reporting that they never had

board meetings.

Figure 3.5.3 Frequency of trustee board meetings – by benefit type

Type

DB only DB w/ DC

AVCs True

hybrid6

DB w/ DC section

DC only


Monthly 5% 1% 0% 4% 3%

Quarterly 43% 52% 38% 55% 32%

Six monthly 36% 32% 50% 33% 27%

Annually 13% 9% 12% 8% 21%

Less often 1% 3% 0% 0% 6%

Never 1% 3% 0% 0% 9%

Schemes currently used for automatic enrolment were more likely to meet at least

quarterly (62%) than schemes not used or planned to be used for automatic

enrolment (43%).

3.6 Time spent on trustee duties and allocation of time between DB and

DC issues in schemes with both DB and DC elements

Trustees were also asked how much time the average board member spent on

carrying out their trustee duties (with DB schemes asked to exclude duties

associated with the triennial valuation exercise when providing this estimate). A third

(33%) of schemes indicated that trustees typically spent less than 5 days a year on

these duties. The average number of days per trustee per year was 11.3.




Figure 3.6.4 Time spent on trustee duties


Trustees of small schemes spent least time on their duties, with a mean of 8.9 days

per year and half (48%) indicating that each trustee spent less than 5 days per year.

In comparison, trustees of large schemes were most likely to spend at least 10 days

per year (63%), with a mean of 15.7 days.

Figure 3.6.5 Time spent on trustee duties – by scheme size

Size

Small

(12-99)

Medium

(100-999)

Large

(1000+)


<1 day per year 10% 3% 3%

1-4 days per year 37% 23% 10%

5-9 days per year 18% 25% 20%

10-14 days per year 11% 22% 32%

15-24 days per year 10% 11% 20%

25+ days per year 6% 8% 11%

Mean days 8.9 11.8 15.7

Half of ‘DC only’ schemes (49%) estimated that their trustees spent less than 5 days

per year on their duties, and the mean number of days was also lowest for this group

(9.0).

6%

27%

21%

19%

13%

7%

Less than 1 day per year

1-4 days per year

5-9 days per year

10-14 days per year

15-24 days per year

25+ days per year


Mean days per year = 11.3


Figure 3.6.6 Time spent on trustee duties – by benefit type

Type

DB only DB w/ DC

AVCs True

hybrid7

DB w/ DC section

DC only


<1 day per year 4% 4% 9% 5% 10%

1-4 days per year 27% 18% 17% 16% 39%

5-9 days per year 25% 22% 25% 19% 17%

10-14 days per year 17% 24% 10% 29% 16%

15-24 days per year 13% 18% 18% 14% 8%

25+ days per year 8% 9% 10% 7% 6%

Mean days 10.6 13.5 17.5 13.8 9.0

Schemes with only professional trustees on average spent more time on their trustee

duties: 46% of boards with only professional trustees spend ten or more days a year

versus 33% of boards with only non-professional trustees

Trustees of schemes that included both DB and DC elements were asked to break

down the proportion of their time spent on DB specific, DC specific and joint DB/DC

issues (excluding duties associated with the triennial valuation).

As detailed in Figure 3.6.7 below, trustees of schemes with both DB and DC

elements on average spend 78% of their time on DB issues and just 15% on DC

issues (with 7% of the time spent on duties that relate to both the DB and DC

elements). When combined with the data on average days spent by trustees on their

duties, this equates to 10.3 days per year on DB issues, 2.3 days on DC issues and

0.9 days on joint DB/DC issues.

Figure 3.6.7 Trustee time division between DB and DC issues

% of time spent

Mean days per trustee per year

Base: All with DB & DC elements & able to answer 244 2328

DB specific issues 78% 10.3

DC specific issues 15% 2.3

Joint DB & DC issues 7% 0.9

There was a broadly consistent picture in this respect by size and type of scheme,

with no statistically significant differences.


DC, for example a money purchase scheme with a guaranteed minimum payment. 8 The base is lower for mean days than % of time spent as not all trustees were able to estimate the

average time spent by trustees on their duties.


3.7 Chairs of trustees

Among schemes subject to the new governance standards legislation, 13% of

schemes did not have a chair of trustees and were not planning to appoint one in the

next 12 months.

Note that the survey took place between March and May 2015 and was therefore

conducted alongside the introduction of new legislation, which came into effect on 6

April 2015, and which required many schemes providing DC benefits to appoint a

chair, submit a chair’s statement and confirm their scheme’s adherence to the new

charge controls

Figure 3.7.1 Prevalence of chairs of trustees – among schemes subject to the new governance standards

Base: All schemes subject to quality standards (593, Don’t know 2%)

Among those schemes subject to the new governance standards, the likelihood of

having a chair or planning to appoint one increased in line with scheme size (97% for

large schemes, 88% for medium and 75% for small).

The vast majority of open (87%), closed (89%) and paid-up (82%) schemes had or

planned to appoint a chair but this fell to 62% among schemes that were winding up.

83%

2%

13%

Yes, have a chair

No, but planning to appoint one in next 12 months

No, and not planning to appoint one in next 12 months


Schemes that did have a chair of trustees were asked how this person was selected

as for the position. In half of cases (51%) the chair was selected by the employer

and in a third (34%) they were selected by the board.

Figure 3.7.2 Selection of the chair of trustees

Base: All with a chair of trustees (695, Don’t know 6%)

In large schemes the chair of trustees was comparatively more likely to have been

selected by the sponsoring employer (60%).

Figure 3.7.3 Selection of the chair of trustees – by scheme size

Size

Small

(12-99)

Medium

(100-999)

Large

(1000+)

Base: All with chair of trustees 227 260 208

By employer 45% 53% 60%

By board 38% 34% 27%

Both 3% 4% 4%

Other 9% 3% 1%

Don’t know 5% 6% 7%

There were no statistically significant differences in this respect by benefit type.

Base: All with a chair of trustees (695, Don’t know 6%)

51%

34%

4%

5%

Selected by the sponsoring employer

Selected by the board

Both (employer and board together)

Other


Those schemes with a chair were also asked what they believed to be the most

important experience, qualities or skills for a good chair of trustees. The results are

displayed in Figure 3.7.4.

Figure 3.7.4 Required competencies of the chair of trustees

Base: All with a chair of trustees (695)

Over half of trustees (54%) cited knowledge of pensions as one of the most

important competencies for an effective chair. Interpersonal and management skills

were also mentioned by a significant proportion of respondents (29% and 28%

respectively), as was previous experience of chairing (21%).

Large schemes identified a broader range of competencies required by the chair of

trustees, including a greater focus on interpersonal (38%), leadership (39%) and

negotiation (16%) skills.

54%

29%

28%

21%

10%

9%

5%

3%

Knowledge of pensions or scheme rules/regulations

Good interpersonal skills (approachable, good communicator, etc)

Management or leadership skills

Previous experience in chairing

Negotiation skills

Relevant knowledge, skills & experience

Personal qualities (honesty, integrity, impartiality, trustworthiness etc)

Ability & willingness to liaise with others (challenge, scrutinise, take advice, etc)


Base: All with a chair of trustees (695)


3.8 Training and development

Over half of schemes (59%) kept a training log for trustees, and a slightly lower

proportion (45%) had a training plan in place. While over a third of schemes (37%)

had both of these in place for trustees, a third (32%) did not have either.

Figure 3.8.1 Use of training plans and logs

Base: All respondents (Route A only) (410, Don’t know 2%)

As detailed in Figure 3.8.2 below, the incidence of training plans and logs increased

significantly among larger schemes. The majority of large schemes (61%) had both

of these in place, while 5% had neither. In contrast, a fifth of small schemes (20%)

had both and over half (57%) had neither.

Figure 3.8.2 Use of training plans and logs – by scheme size

Size

Small

(12-99)

Medium

(100-999)

Large

(1000+)

Base: All respondents (Route A) 153 157 100

Have a training plan in place for trustees

28% 55% 67%

Keep a training log for its trustees

34% 74% 87%

Neither 57% 15% 5%

Don’t know 1% 2% 2%

Net: both 20% 46% 61%

In addition, schemes currently used for automatic enrolment were most likely to have

a training plan in place (64%, compared to 43% of those not used/planning for AE)

and to keep a training log for their trustees (69% vs 57%).

45%

59%

32%

Have a training plan in place for trustees

Keep a training log for its trustees

Neither


37% do both


As illustrated in Figure 3.8.3, a third of schemes (35%) had documented or formally

assessed the learning needs of all of their trustees and 13% had done this for some

trustees.

Figure 3.8.3 Assessment of learning needs


Approaching two-thirds (62%) of large schemes had assessed the learning needs of

all their trustees, compared to 43% of medium schemes and 18% of small ones. This

proportion was also highest for ‘DB with DC section’ and ‘True hybrid9’ schemes

(60% in each case), and for those that were currently used for automatic enrolment

(61%).

Those schemes with non-professional/lay trustees were asked whether any of these

had undertaken any formal, structured training in the previous 12 months. As

detailed in figure 3.8.4, exactly half (50%) of schemes with non-professional trustees

indicated that they had received training recently.




35%

13%

49%

Yes - all of them

Yes - some of them

No


Figure 3.8.4 Whether any non-professional trustees on board had undertaken training in last 12 months

Base: All with non-professional trustees (Route A only) (314, Don’t know 5%)

A range of training was undertaken by non-professional trustees, with two-thirds

(66%) attending refresher courses, over half (55%) receiving introductory training for

new trustees and the same proportion (55%) receiving advanced training.

Figure 3.8.5 Types of training undertaken by non-professional trustees

Base: All where non-professional trustees have undertaken training (Route A only) (163, Don’t know 2%)

It should be noted that the percentages in Figure 3.8.5 are only based on schemes

that had provided training for their non-professional trustees in the previous year (as

detailed in Figure 3.8.4). Half (50%) of schemes with non-professional trustees had

not provided any formal, structured training in the previous year and are excluded

from the above analysis.

Yes50%

55%

66%

55%

6%

Introductory level training, i.e. basics for new trustees

Refresher courses for existing trustees about their responsibilities

Advanced specific training i.e. for trustees with prior training & experience

None of these



The regulator is a major source of training, with 71% of schemes that had provided

training for their non-professional trustees indicating that this had been via the

Trustee toolkit and 18% reporting that trustees had accessed other training from the

regulator. Other common sources of training included legal advisors (40%) and in-

house training (38%).

Figure 3.8.6 Sources of training for non-professional trustees


A minority had used more formal approaches such as the Pensions Management

Institute (PMI) (8%) or the National Association of Pension Funds (NAPF)10 (13%).

A wide variety of themes were covered in this training, with the most common being

pensions investment (89%), the role of trustees (83%), DB funding (75%), DB

pensions regulations (69%) and pensions administration (59%). Comparatively few

had received training on DC pensions regulations (41%) and a small minority had

undertaken training on negotiation skills (13%).

10

Now called The Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association.

71%

40%

38%

31%

27%

23%

16%

18%

13%

8%

8%

7%

The regulator’s Trustee toolkit

Legal adviser

Internal or in - house training

Adviser/actuary

Accountants

Independent Financial Advisor

Auditors

Other training from the regulator

The NAPF

The PMI

Consultants

Third party organisation



As set out in Figure 3.8.7, half of schemes (49%) believed that all of their non-

professional trustees had a level of knowledge and understanding that met the

standards set out in the regulator’s Trustee Knowledge and Understanding (TKU)

code. Half (51%) reported not all of their trustees did. One in 20 (5%) reported that

none have the required knowledge while one in ten (10%) had not heard of the TKU

code.

Figure 3.8.7 Proportion of non-professional trustees meeting TKU code standards

Base: All with non-professional trustees (Route A only) (314)

The likelihood of meeting these standards increased with scheme size, with 69% of

large schemes believing that all of their trustees met them compared to 51% of

medium schemes and 38% of small ones.

The likelihood of meeting these standards increased with scheme size, with 69% of

large schemes believing that all of their trustees met them compared to 51% of

medium schemes and 38% of small ones.

Trustees in ‘DC only’ schemes were least likely to meet the TKU standards, with

25% of these schemes reporting that none of their trustees met these standards or

indicating that they were not aware of the TKU code.

49%

24%

6%

5%

10%

7%

All of the board's non-professional trustees

At least half

Fewer than half

None of them

Not familiar with TKU code

Don't know


Schemes with non-professional trustees were asked to what extent they agreed with

the statement “the training and development opportunities afforded to our lay or non-

professional trustees are sufficient for the needs of our scheme”. The vast majority

(92%) believed these opportunities to be sufficient: two fifths (37%) agreed strongly

and over half agreed (55%).

Figure 3.8.8 Whether training and development opportunities sufficient


Among the minority of trustees (6%) who said the training and development

opportunities were not sufficient, the main barrier to improving the level of training

and development was above all lack of time or the need to prioritise other duties,

followed by lack of knowledge of where to find appropriate training.

37%

55%

6%

0%

Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree



3.9 Knowledge and skills of trustee boards

Trustees were asked to rate their trustee board’s overall knowledge of a number of

aspects likely to be relevant to their duties. For each one they were asked to provide

a rating of between 1 and 10, where 1 meant the board had a very low level of

knowledge and 10 meant they had a very high level of knowledge. The results are

shown in Figure 3.9.1 below.

Figure 3.9.1 Perceived trustee board knowledge ratings

Base: All respondents (Route B only) (406, Don’t know 2%-7%), All DB schemes (Route B only) (240, Don’t know 3%-6%)

Perceived trustee knowledge was fairly highly for most of these aspects, particularly

on ‘the roles and responsibilities of trustees’ (a mean of 8.1 out of 10) and ‘recovery

plans, contributions and funding principles’ (a mean of 8.0). Scores were less

consistent for pensions law (6.5) as well as for the less common areas of ‘pension

scheme wind-ups’ and ‘buy-ins, buy-outs and de-risking’ (mean scores of 5.7 and 6.5

respectively).

Self-reported knowledge levels were significantly higher among large schemes and

lowest for small ones. They were also higher for DB schemes with DC elements

(either AVCs or a separate DC section), and lowest for ‘DC only’ schemes.

It was also the case that schemes where the board was solely made up of

professional/corporate trustees displayed greater knowledge levels. This was

particularly true for those aspects where trustee knowledge as a whole was lowest,

such as wind ups (a mean of 6.5), buy-ins/buy-outs (7.4) and pensions law (7.1).

44%

32%

21%

14%

11%

11%

11%

42%

54%

54%

57%

43%

40%

23%

12%

10%

21%

22%

36%

38%

43%

1%

1%

3%

4%

7%

5%

15%

The roles & responsibilities of trustees

Recovery plans, contributions & funding principles

Pension scheme administration

Pension scheme investments

Pensions law

Buy-ins, buy outs & de-risking

Pension scheme wind-ups

9-10 7-8 4-6 1-3

8.0

Mean

7.3

7.1

6.5

6.5

5.7

8.1

Asked of DB schemes only


Perceived trustee knowledge was higher for schemes where trustees had relevant

qualifications (eg relating to pensions, law, etc) and lowest among those with none of

these qualifications. The latter group reported significantly lower knowledge of

trustee roles/responsibilities (7.6), administration (6.6), investments (6.1) and

pensions law (5.6).

Trustees were also asked to rate how important it was for the board to have

knowledge of these areas. For these questions they were asked to provide a rating

of between 1 and 10, where 1 meant it was of very low importance and 10 meant it

was of very high importance. The results are shown in Figure 3.9.2 below.

Figure 3.9.2 Perceived importance of knowledge aspects


Understanding ‘the roles and responsibilities of trustees’ was deemed to be the most

critical aspect, with a mean score of 8.9 out of 10. Knowledge of ‘pension scheme

wind ups’ and ‘buy-ins, buy-outs and de-risking’ were both felt to be less important

by trustees, with a mean of 6.0 and 6.7 respectively.

68%

46%

41%

31%

23%

12%

11%

28%

44%

46%

53%

43%

43%

28%

3%

8%

10%

13%

28%

34%

44%

1%

1%

2%

5%

7%

12%

The roles & responsibilities of trustees

Recovery plans, contributions & funding principles

Pension scheme investments

Pension scheme administration

Pensions law

Buy-ins, buy outs & de-risking

Pension scheme wind-up

9-10 7-8 4-6 1-3

8.3

Mean

8.1

7.9

7.2

6.7

6.0

8.9



Figure 3.9.3 combines the data on knowledge and importance to identify any

potential gaps (i.e. areas where trustee knowledge is significantly lower than the

perceived importance). This analysis focuses on the proportion of firms giving a

score of 7-10 out of 10 for the each aspect.

Figure 3.9.3 Trustee board knowledge gaps (difference between perceived

knowledge rating and perceived importance rating)

Base: All respondents (Route B only) (406), All DB schemes (Route B only) (240)

When looking only at scores of 7-10, some potential gaps were identified between

levels of trustee knowledge and the perceived importance of the board having

knowledge of each area. The largest gap was seen for ‘pension scheme

investments’, with a gap of 17% between the proportion scoring 7-10 on knowledge

(71%) and the proportion scoring 7-10 on importance (88%).

There was also some evidence of a knowledge gap for ‘pensions law’ and ‘the roles

and responsibilities of trustees’ (a gap of 12% and 9% respectively).

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

The roles & responsibilities

of trustees

Recovery plans,

contributions & funding principles

Pension scheme

administration

Pension scheme

investments

Pensions law Buy-ins, buy outs & de-

risking

Pension scheme wind-

up

Knowledge

Importance


Pro

po

rtio

n s

cori

ng

7-1

0


In addition to rating the board’s knowledge, trustees also rated its skills in a number

of areas. A 1-10 scale was employed where 1 meant the board’s skills were very

poor and 10 meant they were very good.

Figure 3.9.4 Perceived trustee board skills ratings

Base: All respondents (Route B only) (406, Don’t know 2%-6%), All DB schemes (Route B only) (240, Don’t know 3%)

Note: “VFM” stands for value for money.

As shown in Figure 3.9.4, trustees generally rated their abilities very highly across all

areas, although those aspects relating to assessing value for money all scored

slightly lower than the other areas.

There was strong evidence of a link between the level of trustee skills/capabilities

and pension scheme size, with results highest for large schemes and lowest for

small ones for the majority of the areas rated. The greatest difference by scheme

size was for challenging investment advice and advisors, with a mean score of 8.5

for large schemes and 7.2 for small ones. There were similar differences for

challenging administrators (8.7 vs 7.5) and challenging other advice/advisors (8.5 vs

7.3).

When analysing the results by benefit type, DB schemes with DC elements (either

AVCs or a separate DC section) typically provided the highest ratings for the ability

of their trustee board, and ‘DC only’ schemes provided the lowest ratings. For

example, when rating their ability to challenge administrators ‘DB with DC AVCs’ and

‘DB with DC section’ schemes gave mean scores of 8.5 and 8.3, compared to 7.4 for

54%

50%

49%

39%

33%

33%

30%

27%

26%

23%

37%

42%

42%

41%

47%

42%

50%

50%

49%

54%

5%

5%

5%

15%

15%

17%

16%

17%

18%

16%

1%

1%

2%

3%

2%

2%

2%

2%

Work effectively as a trustee board

Assess employer covenant

Negotiate with employers on funding

Challenge administrators

Challenge other advice or advisors

Challenge investment advice/advisors

Assess VFM in administration costs

Assess VFM in investment advisor costs

Assess VFM in investment costs

Assess VFM in other advisor costs

9-10 7-8 4-6 1-3

8.6

Mean

8.0

7.8

7.7

7.7

7.6

8.6


8.6

7.6

7.6


‘DC only’. Similarly, the former scored 8.2 and 8.3 for challenging other

advice/advisors and ‘DC only’ scored 7.1.

Schemes that used external advisors also provided higher ratings for trustee skills,

than those that did not employ advisors. This was evident for working effectively as a

trustee board (8.7 vs 8.0), challenging administrators (8.1 vs 7.2), challenging

investment advice/advisors (7.8 vs 6.8), challenging other advice/advisors (7.9 vs

6.9) and assessing value for money in other advisor costs (7.7 and 7.0).

In cases where none of the scheme’s trustees had relevant qualifications (in

pensions, finance/investment, law, etc) schemes provided lower ratings (e.g. a mean

of 6.8 for challenging investment advice, 7.0 for challenging other advice, 7.0 for

assessing value for money in investment costs).Schemes where the board solely

consisted of professional/corporate trustees were better able to assess the value for

money of the investment advisors they used (a mean of 8.0 vs 7.4 for boards

consisting solely of non-professional trustees).

Trustees were also asked to rate how important it was for the board to have these

abilities. For these questions they were asked to provide a rating of between 1 and

10, where 1 meant it was of very low importance and 10 meant it was of very high

importance. The results are shown in Figure 3.9.5 below.

Figure 3.9.5 Perceived importance of skills aspects


Note: “VFM” stands for value for money.

72%

67%

58%

48%

46%

46%

37%

36%

34%

30%

22%

28%

34%

42%

45%

45%

49%

51%

52%

52%

2%

2%

4%

6%

6%

5%

9%

10%

9%

12%

1%

1%

Work effectively as a trustee board

Negotiate with employers on funding

Assess employer covenant

Challenge investment advice/advisors

Challenge administrators

Challenge other advice or advisors

Assess VFM in investment costs

Assess VFM in administration costs

Assess VFM in investment advisor costs

Assess VFM in other advisor costs

9-10 7-8 4-6 1-3


8.8

Mean

8.5

8.4

8.2

8.1

7.9

9.1

9.0

8.1

8.4


All of these aspects were viewed as important by trustees, with at least 82% giving

an importance score of 7-10 for each one. ‘Working effectively as a trustee board’

and ‘negotiating with employers on funding’ were both seen as critical, with 72% and

67% respectively scoring 9-10.

The board’s ability to assess value for money was felt to be slightly less vital than the

other areas (8.2 for assessing value in investment costs, 8.1 for administration costs,

8.1 for investment advisor costs and 7.9 for other advisor costs). However, only a

small minority (9%-12%) gave these aspects an importance score of less than 7 out

of 10.

Figure 3.9.6 combines the data on skills and importance to identify any potential

gaps (ie areas where trustee skills are significantly lower than the perceived

importance). This analysis focuses on the proportion of firms giving a score of 7-10

out of 10 for the each aspect.

Figure 3.9.6 Trustee board skills gaps (difference between perceived skills rating and

perceived importance rating)

Base: All respondents (Route B only) (406), All DB schemes (Route B only) (240)

The largest gap was seen for ‘challenging investment advice/advisors’, with a

difference of 15% between the proportion scoring 7-10 for the trustee board’s

abilities (75%) and the proportion scoring 7-10 for the importance of this aspect

(90%).

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Wo

rk e

ffec

tive

ly

as a

tru

stee

b

oar

d

Ass

ess

emp

loye

r co

ven

ant

Neg

oti

ate

wit

h

emp

loye

rs o

n

fun

din

g

Ch

alle

nge

ad

min

istr

ato

rs

Ch

alle

nge

oth

er

advi

ce o

r ad

viso

rs

Ch

alle

nge

in

vest

men

t ad

vice

/ad

viso

rs

Ass

ess

VFM

in

adm

inis

trat

ion

co

sts

Ass

ess

VFM

in

inve

stm

ent

advi

sor

cost

s

Ass

ess

VFM

in

inve

stm

ent c

ost

s

Ass

ess

VFM

in

oth

er a

dvi

sor

cost

s


Pro

po

rtio

n s

cori

ng

7-1

0

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Wo

rk

effe

ctiv

ely

as a

tr

ust

ee b

oar

d

Ass

ess

emp

loye

r co

ven

ant

Neg

oti

ate

wit

h

emp

loye

rs o

n

fun

din

g

Ch

alle

nge

ad

min

istr

ato

rs

Ch

alle

nge

oth

er

advi

ce o

r ad

viso

rs

Ch

alle

nge

in

vest

men

t ad

vice

/ad

viso

rs

Ass

ess

VFM

in

adm

inis

trat

ion

co

sts

Ass

ess

VFM

in

inve

stm

ent

advi

sor

cost

s

Ass

ess

VFM

in

inve

stm

ent

cost

s

Ass

ess

VFM

in

oth

er a

dvi

sor

cost

s

Skills

Importance


There was also some disparity between ability and importance for challenging

administrators, challenging other advice or advisors, assessing value for money in

investment advisor costs and assessing value for money in investment costs (with a

gap of between 9-11% for these areas).


3.10 Managing relationships with advisors

As is evident in Figure 3.10.1, the majority (89%) of schemes used external advisors

or service providers (excluding the scheme administrators). The most commonly

reported external advisors were auditors (73%), legal advisors (71%) and actuaries

(69%).

Figure 3.10.1 Use of external advisors


Use of advisors was significantly lower among ‘DC only’ schemes and small

schemes (12-99 members), with 23% and 18% of these groups respectively not

using any external advisors.

73%

71%

69%

59%

56%

25%

21%

18%

8%

5%

10%

Auditor

Legal advisor

Actuary

Investment/fund manager

Investment consultant

Covenant advisor

IFA

Benefit consultant

Corporate finance advisor

Other

Do not use external advisors


Schemes were asked about the frequency with which they agreed or disagreed with

their external advisors. For this question, each respondent was asked about just one

of the advisors they used (selected at random) and results have only been shown for

those advisors where the base was 30 or more.

Figure 3.10.2 Frequency of agreeing/disagreeing with external advisors

Base: All respondents using external providers (Base, Don’t know) Auditor (141, 2%), Legal (117, 2%), IFA (56, 8%), Covenant (32, 1%),

Investment mgr (92, 2%), Actuary (127, 0%), Investment consultant (79, 6%)

It was rare that the trustee board disagreed with its external advisors. Across all of

the advisor types, the majority of schemes indicated that they rarely (58%) or never

(24%) disagreed with this advisor (with 14% sometimes disagreeing and 1% always

disagreeing).

The incidence of disagreement was highest for investment/fund managers and

investment consultants, with 26% sometimes/always disagreeing in each case.

Schemes were least likely to disagree with their auditor (41% never disagreed).

41%

29%

27%

19%

19%

15%

11%

52%

62%

52%

71%

53%

69%

57%

4%

5%

13%

9%

23%

15%

26%

1%

2%

3%

Auditor

Legal advisor

IFA

Covenant advisor


Actuary


Never disagrees Rarely disagrees Sometimes disagrees Often disagrees


Schemes were asked how confident they were that they were receiving value for

money from their external advisors. Again, each respondent was asked about just

one of the advisors they used (selected at random) and results have only been

shown for those advisors where the base was 30 or more.

Figure 3.10.3 Confidence in receiving value for money from external advisors

Base: All respondents with external providers Auditor (141), Legal (117), IFA (56), Covenant (32), Investment mgr (92), Actuary (127), Investment consultant (79)

Schemes generally expressed high confidence about receiving value for money from

their external advisors. Across all of the advisor types, 40% of schemes were very

confident that they received value for money and a further 51% were confident. This

reflects the high scores seen previously for trustees’ abilities to assess value for

money in investment/administration/advisor costs (as detailed in Section 3.9).

Schemes were most confident in receiving value from their IFA (46% very confident),

and least confident when it came to their covenant advisor (36% very confident).

A small minority (3%) of schemes felt that they were not receiving value for money

from the external advisor they were asked about. These 19 respondents were asked

for their reasons and gave the following responses:

• The market/industry overall does not offer value for money (13 respondents).

• We have reviewed the costs and charges and this suggests they do not offer

value for money (8 respondents).

• We don’t have the necessary knowledge or expertise to know whether we are

receiving value for money (6 respondents).

• We are unsure as we haven’t reviewed whether we are receiving value for

money (2 respondents).

46%

44%

43%

39%

38%

37%

36%

40%

48%

50%

54%

55%

52%

63%

2%

1%

2%

3%

7%

1%

2%

14%

5%

7%

3%

2%

4%

1%

IFA

Legal advisor

Auditor


Actuary


Covenant advisor

Very confident Confident Not confident Not at all confident Don't know


Schemes were also asked about their approach to appointing advisors and the

freedom they had to do so. As seen in Figure 3.10.4, two thirds (63%) felt free to

appoint advisors whenever it was seen as beneficial. Most of the remainder (25%)

had to be selective when appointing external advisors due to the cost.

Figure 3.10.4 Affordability of advisors


Larger schemes reported more flexibility in this regard, with 79% reporting that they

could appoint advisors whenever it was felt to be beneficial (compared to 64% of

medium schemes and 55% of small ones). Overall, 18% of small schemes indicated

that they could either never appoint advisors or could only do so when absolutely

necessary.

63%

25%

7%

2%

The scheme can afford to appoint advisors & will do so when it sees it as beneficial

The scheme has to be selective in its appointment of advisors due to cost

considerations

The scheme can rarely afford to appoint advisors & only does so when absolutely

necessary

The scheme cannot afford to appoint advisors


3.11 Administrator reporting and attendance at board meetings

The vast majority (84%) of schemes received formal reports on standards of

administration at least annually. The administrators of large schemes provided

reports most frequently, with 85% doing so at least quarterly (compared to 18% for

small schemes).

Figure 3.11.1 Frequency of receiving reports on administration standards


In addition, 71% of schemes reported that a representative from the administrator

attended board meetings at least once a year, although almost a fifth (17%) said that

the administrator never attended. Again, frequency increased with scheme size, with

60% of large schemes indicating that the administrator attended at least quarterly

compared to 36% of medium schemes and 13% of small ones.

Figure 3.11.2 Frequency of administrator attending board meetings


6%

37%

14%

28%

4%

6%

At least monthly

Quarterly

6 monthly

Annually

Less often

Never



3%

28%

22%

18%

4%

0%

17%

At least monthly

Quarterly

6 monthly

Annually

Every 2-3 years

Less often

Never


3.12 Main issues facing boards of trustees

Schemes were asked what they believed to be the main issues facing their board of

trustees regarding the scheme’s overall governance, either now or in the future.

Responses were recorded verbatim but have been coded into common themes for

ease of analysis and interpretation. The most widely mentioned areas are detailed in

Figure 3.12.1 below.

Figure 3.12.1 Main issues facing trustees

Base: All respondents (Route A only) (410, Don’t know 5%, None 8%)

A range of issues were identified but the most commonly reported was the changing

regulatory environment (29%). For illustrative purposes, a small selection of the

specific comments made are shown below:

“I think it's just about keeping our understanding up-to-date in what is a very

dynamic pensions environment.”

“Funding risk, with low interest rates.”

“Always to ensure that members put enough into their pension pot and, due to

the new regulations, make sure members don't take money out of their pension

pots that they may need later.”

“It will be complying with new cap charges in light of our default strategy, which

we have had to revise as some our funds have charges that exceed the cap.”

29%

19%

16%

15%

15%

7%

4%

3%

Changing regulations & environment

Funding

Changing structure of scheme/business

Investment strategies, performance & liabilities

Securing the future of the scheme

Security of members interests & benefits

Dealing with 3rd parties/external advisors/administrators

Member communication & engagement



3.13 Trustees’ ideas about raising standards of trustees

Schemes were asked what they believed was the one thing that could be done to

raise the standard of all trustees (in the context of all pension schemes and not just

their own). Responses were recorded verbatim but have been coded into common

themes, and the most widely mentioned areas are detailed in Figure 3.13.1 below.

Figure 3.13.1 Trustees’ ideas about raising standards of trustees

Base: All respondents (Route A only) (410, Don’t know 13%, None 4%)

Training, information and education were seen as the key route to raising standards,

with half (47%) of trustees suggesting this and a further 11% mentioning

qualifications and 10% suggesting that training and recruitment processes be

reviewed and/or monitored. For illustrative purposes, a small selection of the specific

comments made have been shown below:

“Well I think it comes down to training. It obviously helps to have a good board

of trustees running it.”

“Training, training and training. You can't get enough.”

“That they are appropriately qualified and receive up-to-date training, and that is

where the Trustee toolkit is important. Awareness of where changes affect

pension schemes. It's a continuous improvement process.”

“To make sure they have a better knowledge of pensions. It's too complicated

and they should try and make it easier to understand. They rely on third parties

to look after pensions and keep them informed. They need more information on

how pensions work.”

“There should be a formal qualification for trustees.”

47%

11%

10%

7%

6%

4%

3%

3%

2%

2%

Training, information & education

Qualifications

Clearer responsibilities & requirements

Review/monitor training & recruitment processes

Have an independent/ professional board member

Simplify issues/processes

Assessments

Access to good quality/ knowledgeable people

Use external/3rd party advice & resources

Make the role more attractive (flexibility, workload, etc)Top mentions only (2%+)


4 Annex A: Full data results

This section details the full survey results by individual questions.

4.1 Scheme and employer characteristics

A1 – How many members are there in the [SCHEME NAME] scheme - including all

active, deferred and pensioner members?

Total

Scheme Size Benefit Type

Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-

brid11

DB w/ DC sec

DC only

Base: All respondents 816 310 294 212 222 127 32 109 324

12 - 29 members 19% 43% 0% 0% 17% 9% 26% 8% 31%

30 - 99 members 25% 57% 0% 0% 33% 17% 8% 28% 22%

100 - 199 members 14% 0% 38% 0% 15% 17% 12% 6% 14%

200 - 999 members 22% 0% 62% 0% 20% 30% 35% 22% 19%

1,000 - 4,999 members 13% 0% 0% 63% 11% 18% 11% 17% 9%

5,000 - 9,999 members 4% 0% 0% 18% 1% 2% 8% 11% 3%

10,000 members 4% 0% 0% 20% 3% 8% 1% 7% 2%

A2 – Does your scheme offer any DB elements? <IF DC Or offer any other

guaranteed benefits12?>

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


Yes 71% 65% 73% 80% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1%

No 28% 34% 26% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 97%

Don’t know 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2%

11

A scheme where each individual member accrues a benefit which includes elements of both DB and DC, for example a money purchase scheme with a guaranteed minimum payment. 12

Schemes with guaranteed benefits may include: Defined benefits schemes (such as final or career average salary), schemes with cash-balance benefits or guaranteed investment returns, schemes offering guaranteed annuities or self-annuitisation, or defined benefit underpins.


A3 – Which of the following describes the types of guaranteed benefits offered through your scheme?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only

Base: All offering guaranteed benefits

495 163 183 149 222 127 32 109 3

DB 98% 98% 98% 99% 100% 99% 86% 100% 0%

Cash-Balance Benefits / guaranteed investment returns

4% 3% 5% 3% 2% 4% 5% 7% 0%

DC with guaranteed annuities / self-annuitisation (excluding DC AVCs)

8% 8% 6% 11% 0% 0% 3% 40% 100%

DC with DB underpin (excluding DC AVCs)

6% 6% 7% 5% 0% 0% 73% 11% 0%

Other benefits guaranteed through a Third Party Promise

1% 1% 3% 0% 2% 0% 0% 1% 0%

Any other guaranteed benefits

2% 1% 1% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3% 0%

A4 – Does your scheme have any DC elements or money purchase benefits elements? This includes any DC AVCs.

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only

Base: All not reporting DC or money purchase benefits so far

751 292 270 189 222 127 10 69 321

Yes 62% 57% 63% 70% 0% 100% 100% 100% 100%

No 37% 42% 36% 30% 97% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Don’t know 1% 1% 2% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0%


A5 – Which of the following describes the Defined Contribution benefit arrangements offered through your scheme?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only

Base: All with both DB and DC elements

207 47 79 81 0 127 10 69 0

Guaranteed benefits w/ DC AVCs

81% 73% 88% 78% - 99% 46% 45% -

Guaranteed benefits w/ DC underpin

4% 6% 1% 5% - 0% 68% 4% -

Guaranteed benefits w/ separate DC section (excluding DC AVCs)

30% 35% 21% 36% - 0% 0% 99% -

Any other DC arrangement

1% 3% 0% 1% - 1% 0% 1% -

Don’t know 2% 3% 2% 1% - 0% 32% 0% -

A6 – Is your scheme currently being used for the purpose of automatic enrolment?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


Yes 20% 12% 21% 38% 7% 12% 28% 38% 32%

No 72% 79% 73% 59% 87% 82% 72% 58% 56%

Don’t know 1% 2% 2% 0% 2% 1% 0% 1% 2%

Scheme is winding up 6% 8% 4% 4% 5% 5% 0% 2% 10%

A7 – Do you plan to use the scheme in the future for the purpose of automatic enrolment?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only

Base: All not currently used for AE & not winding up

552 251 195 106 194 103 19 56 178

Yes 4% 6% 4% 1% 3% 1% 0% 4% 12%

No 94% 92% 94% 97% 97% 97% 89% 96% 86%

Don’t know 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 11% 1% 3%


A8 – Is your scheme a qualifying automatic enrolment scheme in the context of the Pensions Act 2008?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only

Base: All with DC elements & not used/planned for AE

322 145 114 63 0 99 18 53 151

Yes 21% 12% 25% 34% - 25% 14% 30% 13%

No 57% 61% 57% 48% - 52% 59% 54% 64%

Don’t know 22% 27% 18% 18% - 22% 27% 17% 23%

A9 – Was this scheme specifically set up for the purpose of offering automatic enrolment?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only

Base: All established after 2009 and used/planned for AE

22 2 8 12 0 3 1 3 15

Yes 0% 0% 0% 0% - 0% 0% 0% 0%

No 0% 0% 0% 0% - 0% 0% 0% 0%

Don’t know 100% 100% 100% 100% - 100% 100% 100% 100%

A10 – Which of the following is the main provider of administration services for this scheme?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


Third Party Administrator 78% 70% 87% 81% 80% 83% 78% 84% 70%

Insurer-administrator 9% 14% 6% 3% 6% 6% 13% 6% 15%

In-house administrator 11% 13% 5% 15% 12% 9% 9% 7% 12%

Other 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 0% 3% 2%

Don’t know 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1%


A12 – Which of the following reflects the fund management arrangements of your DC scheme investments?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only

Base: All schemes with DC elements

593 212 214 167 0 127 32 109 324

Funds are selected through one or more provider platforms

58% 59% 55% 61% - 45% 51% 65% 63%

Funds are selected through individual asset managers (not through platforms)

31% 18% 40% 42% - 47% 35% 37% 19%

Some other arrangement 11% 13% 13% 6% - 15% 18% 6% 11%

Don’t know 10% 18% 5% 3% - 6% 8% 6% 15%

A14 – Does your scheme offer benefits to more than one employer?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


Yes 27% 15% 27% 51% 25% 28% 42% 36% 21%

No 73% 83% 73% 48% 74% 72% 58% 64% 77%

Don’t know 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1%

A15 – Are all the employers part of a group of companies?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


Yes 23% 13% 22% 45% 22% 26% 35% 32% 16%

No 4% 2% 5% 6% 3% 2% 7% 3% 5%

Don’t know 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Scheme does not offer benefits to >1 employer

73% 85% 73% 49% 75% 72% 58% 64% 79%


A16 – Does the scheme have distinct sections relating to employers which are not connected, where each section is governed by different trustees or managers?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only

Base: All where employers not part of a group of companies

31 4 14 13 7 4 2 3 15

Yes 5% 0% 3% 12% 5% 0% 0% 0% 10%

No 91% 100% 88% 88% 95% 100% 100% 100% 80%

Don’t know 4% 0% 9% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10%

A17 – Does the scheme promote itself as a scheme that ‘non-connected’ employers may join?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only

Base: All where employers part of group/ scheme does not offer benefits to >1 employer

785 306 280 199 215 123 30 106 309

Yes 1% 0% 2% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 3%

No 99% 99% 98% 99% 100% 99% 100% 100% 96%

Don’t know 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

A18 – Will the scheme have distinct sections relating to employers which are not connected employers, where each of those sections is governed by different trustees or managers?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only

Base: All promoting as a scheme that 'non-connected' employers may join

9 2 5 2 0 1 0 0 8

Yes 14% 0% 0% 74% - 0% - - 16%

No 59% 46% 75% 26% - 100% - - 51%

Don’t know 27% 54% 25% 0% - 0% - - 32%


A21 – Approximately how many people are employed in the UK by the employer(s) associated with the scheme?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


Fewer than 50 30% 51% 17% 7% 31% 22% 37% 34% 30%

Between 50 and 249 30% 33% 38% 7% 34% 21% 29% 19% 35%

250 or more 37% 12% 42% 83% 32% 54% 26% 47% 30%

Don’t know 3% 4% 4% 2% 3% 4% 8% 0% 5%

4.2 Trustee and governance board background/characteristics

B1 – According to the regulator’s records there are [NUMBER_TRUSTEES] trustees currently associated with the [SCHEME NAME] pension scheme, can you confirm whether this is correct?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


Yes 91% 93% 92% 85% 92% 94% 87% 91% 88%

No 9% 7% 8% 15% 7% 6% 13% 9% 11%

Don’t know 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

B1/B2 – How many trustees are associated with your scheme? (Data taken from sample if B1=yes)

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


1 31% 30% 19% 54% 21% 31% 24% 37% 41%

2-3 37% 54% 33% 6% 45% 24% 38% 33% 37%

4-5 20% 11% 32% 16% 21% 28% 23% 17% 13%

6-10 12% 4% 16% 22% 13% 15% 15% 14% 7%

Don’t know 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1%

Mean 3.0 2.4 3.6 3.0 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.0 2.5


B38 – Which of the following types of trustees do you have?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


Corporate 34% 29% 27% 58% 23% 36% 23% 51% 39%

Professional 24% 21% 27% 26% 25% 36% 25% 25% 15%

Non professional / lay employer-appointed

63% 61% 72% 51% 71% 62% 62% 55% 58%

Non-professional / lay member-nominated

58% 46% 72% 59% 66% 66% 70% 64% 39%

Statutory independent / other type of professional

1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1%

Other type of non-professional

1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 5% 0% 0%

Don’t know 1% 3% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 1%

Net: Professional (including corporate)

52% 46% 49% 72% 44% 62% 48% 65% 51%

Net: Non-professional 72% 69% 83% 60% 80% 71% 85% 65% 65%

B5 – Do the corporate trustees also act as trustees for any other schemes that are

not associated with the employer(s) in this scheme?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only

Base: All with corporate trustees

252 83 71 98 50 44 6 44 107

Yes 33% 34% 38% 27% 39% 32% 79% 25% 29%

No 62% 59% 53% 72% 60% 63% 15% 68% 65%

Don’t know 5% 6% 9% 1% 2% 5% 6% 7% 6%

B8 – Are you the chair of trustees?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


Yes 46% 42% 56% 38% 49% 49% 71% 38% 42%

No 53% 57% 44% 62% 51% 50% 21% 62% 57%

Don’t know 1% 2% 1% 0% 0% 2% 8% 0% 1%


B9 – Do you have a chair of trustees?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


Yes 83% 74% 87% 97% 85% 89% 92% 85% 76%

No 15% 24% 12% 3% 15% 9% 0% 15% 22%

Don’t know 1% 2% 1% 0% 1% 2% 8% 0% 2%

B10 – How were you/they selected as the chair? Were you/they...?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only

Base: All with a chair of trustees

695 227 260 208 193 117 31 97 255

Selected by the sponsoring employer

51% 45% 53% 60% 51% 55% 61% 49% 50%

Selected by the board 34% 38% 34% 27% 31% 33% 31% 37% 37%

Both - selected by the employer and the board

4% 3% 4% 4% 4% 2% 5% 7% 2%

Volunteered 1% 3% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% 3%

Regulator appointed 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1%

Member nominated 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

No fixed chair / it alternates

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Inherited / came with the job

1% 3% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 1%

Other 1% 2% 1% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 1%

Don’t know 6% 5% 6% 7% 6% 8% 3% 6% 4%


B11 – What do you see as the most important aspects of the role of the chair of trustees?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


695 227 260 208 193 117 31 97 255

Defending members’ interests

39% 39% 40% 37% 40% 43% 32% 40% 35%

Providing leadership / strategic direction

26% 16% 29% 37% 22% 29% 32% 34% 24%

Chairing meetings 22% 16% 25% 29% 24% 20% 27% 30% 17%

Ensuring board has right competencies / skills

21% 15% 25% 27% 21% 25% 19% 20% 20%

Managing relationships with other parties

21% 14% 24% 30% 29% 17% 15% 21% 16%

Monitoring employer covenant / strength / finance

17% 16% 18% 16% 20% 15% 20% 17% 15%

Deciding on investment strategy

11% 8% 12% 14% 14% 4% 21% 11% 11%

Overall governance 7% 8% 8% 5% 4% 6% 14% 11% 9%

Knowledge/compliance with regulations & rules

7% 5% 8% 6% 3% 8% 25% 3% 9%

Appropriate scheme administration

4% 7% 3% 1% 4% 2% 4% 2% 6%

Relevant skills, knowledge & experience

2% 1% 1% 6% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%

Independence, trustworthiness, fairness, ability to resolve conflicts

1% 1% 0% 4% 1% 0% 2% 2% 3%

Administering or governing the scheme according to its rules

2% 3% 1% 0% 1% 1% 4% 4% 1%

Providing advice & information to all

1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2%

Appoint trustees & oversee/represent activities/interests of the board

1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1%

Look after/consider the employer

1% 0% 1% 3% 1% 2% 0% 0% 1%

Managing scheme’s inflows & outflows

0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 0%

Other 3% 3% 2% 4% 3% 3% 5% 4% 2%

Don’t know 2% 4% 2% 0% 1% 3% 0% 0% 5%


B12 – What do you see as being the most important experience, qualities or skills for a good chair of trustees?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


695 227 260 208 193 117 31 97 255

Knowledge of pensions or scheme rules / regulations

54% 49% 60% 56% 55% 53% 68% 63% 48%

Good interpersonal skills 29% 25% 28% 38% 32% 30% 23% 24% 29%

Management or leadership skills

28% 24% 27% 39% 30% 33% 37% 22% 24%

Previous experience in chairing

21% 20% 20% 25% 20% 26% 19% 20% 21%

Negotiation skills 10% 6% 9% 16% 11% 13% 16% 6% 8%

Relevant knowledge, skills & experience

9% 7% 10% 10% 7% 4% 20% 12% 12%

Personal qualities: honesty, integrity, impartiality, trustworthiness etc.

5% 6% 4% 4% 5% 3% 4% 5% 8%

Ability and willingness to liaise with others (take advice/scrutinise/challenge)

3% 4% 3% 2% 1% 3% 4% 3% 5%

Understanding, maintaining, protecting interests/benefits

1% 0% 2% 0% 1% 3% 0% 0% 1%

Ensure appropriate funding & overall running/scheme administration

1% 1% 1% 2% 0% 3% 0% 1% 2%

Maintaining relationships with relevant bodies

1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0%

Training/ willingness to learn

1% 0% 2% 0% 0% 1% 6% 0% 1%

Ability to devise & implement strategies/decisions

1% 1% 0% 2% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1%

Ensuring all relevant parties have up-to-date advice and information

1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1%

Should be accessible and available

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0%

Other 3% 1% 5% 3% 2% 5% 9% 2% 2%

Don’t know 2% 3% 2% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 5%


B13 – Is your scheme intending to appoint a Chair in the next 12 months?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only

Base: All without a chair of trustees

109 73 32 4 26 9 0 12 62

Yes 12% 13% 14% 0% 8% 0% - 28% 14%

No 86% 87% 81% 100% 88% 100% - 72% 85%

Don’t know 2% 1% 5% 0% 4% 0% - 0% 1%

B14 – On average, how frequently does the full trustee board have formal meetings?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


At least monthly 3% 4% 1% 6% 5% 1% 0% 4% 3%

At least quarterly 43% 21% 47% 82% 43% 52% 38% 55% 32%

At least every six months 33% 37% 41% 8% 36% 32% 50% 33% 27%

At least annually 14% 25% 8% 0% 13% 9% 12% 8% 21%

Less frequently than annually

3% 5% 1% 1% 1% 3% 0% 0% 6%

Have never had a trustee meeting

4% 7% 1% 1% 1% 3% 0% 0% 9%

Don’t know 1% 2% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1%


B35 – What would you describe as the main role of the trustee board?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


To protect the interests of members

26% 26% 26% 27% 31% 24% 29% 24% 23%

To support/ensure good scheme governance

22% 16% 25% 29% 19% 25% 20% 23% 22%

To ensure compliance with the law / regulations

21% 21% 20% 22% 18% 23% 35% 18% 22%

To provide & review investments/strategies/ overall performance

21% 20% 21% 24% 24% 26% 15% 23% 15%

To ensure the scheme is sufficiently funded

13% 11% 15% 15% 16% 20% 21% 8% 7%

To ensure members get benefits & statements

13% 9% 16% 17% 14% 18% 18% 8% 10%

To support/ensure good scheme administration

12% 9% 15% 14% 11% 15% 10% 11% 12%

To protect/maintain member benefits

9% 9% 8% 11% 9% 9% 1% 14% 9%

To deal with any issues/queries/disputes

3% 2% 4% 1% 1% 1% 8% 0% 6%

To manage, scrutinise or challenge advisors / providers / suppliers / administrators

3% 4% 3% 2% 2% 3% 0% 3% 5%

To represent/act as a voice for members

3% 4% 3% 1% 3% 5% 0% 0% 3%

Take advice from/liaise with other bodies

4% 5% 4% 1% 6% 1% 2% 2% 3%

To promote member communication

2% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 5% 1% 2%

Maintain good relationship with employer, deal with covenant issues

3% 2% 3% 3% 4% 2% 8% 5% 1%

Oversee windup/down 2% 4% 1% 1% 2% 0% 8% 0% 4%

To scrutinise or challenge employers

2% 2% 3% 1% 3% 1% 2% 2% 1%

Oversee/keep up-to-date with membership

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

Other 3% 4% 1% 3% 2% 2% 4% 5% 2%

Not applicable 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0%

Don’t know 1% 2% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 3%


B15 – Does one board handle business related to both DB and DC issues or do you use separate boards (or committees)?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only

Base: All with both DC and DC elements

265 61 100 104 0 127 28 109 0

Same board / committees

83% 75% 85% 91% - 83% 81% 85% -

Separate board/ committees

12% 14% 12% 9% - 14% 8% 8% -

Don’t know 5% 12% 3% 0% - 2% 11% 7% -

B16 – Does your scheme have any sub-committees?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


Yes 18% 2% 15% 60% 14% 26% 20% 33% 10%

No 81% 98% 84% 40% 86% 72% 80% 67% 89%

Don’t know 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 1%


B17 – And which of the following issues are specifically covered by these groups or committees?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


Investment 16% 2% 12% 54% 13% 25% 5% 29% 7%

Governance 6% 0% 3% 23% 4% 5% 4% 16% 4%

Risk management 5% 1% 3% 19% 4% 3% 4% 14% 4%

Administration and operations

5% 1% 3% 18% 4% 5% 3% 11% 3%

Scheme funding 4% 0% 1% 18% 4% 5% 2% 11% 2%

Audit 4% 0% 1% 18% 3% 4% 6% 13% 2%

Communications 4% 0% 2% 16% 2% 4% 9% 11% 2%

Discretionary committee 3% 0% 0% 14% 2% 5% 2% 6% 1%

Benefits 2% 0% 1% 9% 1% 3% 1% 6% 2%

Other 2% 0% 2% 6% 1% 2% 6% 3% 1%

Don't know 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

No sub-committees 81% 98% 84% 40% 86% 72% 80% 67% 89%

Don't know if any sub-committees

0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 1%

B18/B19 – Approximately, how much time would the average trustee on the board spend on carrying out their trustee duties?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


Less than 1 day per year 6% 10% 3% 3% 4% 4% 9% 5% 10%

1-4 days per year 27% 37% 23% 10% 27% 18% 17% 16% 39%

5-9 days per year 21% 18% 25% 20% 25% 22% 25% 19% 17%

10-14 days per year 19% 11% 22% 32% 17% 24% 10% 29% 16%

15-24 days per year 13% 10% 11% 20% 13% 18% 18% 14% 8%

25+ days per year 7% 6% 8% 11% 8% 9% 10% 7% 6%

Don't know / can't answer

7% 7% 8% 4% 7% 5% 12% 11% 5%

Mean days per year 11.3 8.9 11.8 15.7 10.6 13.5 17.5 13.8 9.0


B20/B21 – In the year of your scheme’s triennial valuation, approximately how much time would the average trustee spend carrying out their trustee duties related to the triennial valuation?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only

Base: All offering DB or Cash-Balance Benefits

487 159 180 148 222 127 28 109 0

Less than 1 day per year 10% 11% 9% 9% 8% 12% 11% 13% -

1-4 days per year 31% 32% 33% 28% 34% 29% 34% 28% -

5-9 days per year 15% 13% 14% 20% 13% 18% 11% 15% -

10-14 days per year 10% 10% 9% 10% 11% 7% 9% 10% -

15-24 days per year 8% 5% 9% 13% 5% 11% 7% 12% -

25+ days per year 9% 8% 9% 9% 10% 7% 13% 6% -

Don't know / Can't answer

18% 21% 18% 11% 20% 16% 17% 15% -

Mean days per year 11.2 10.2 12.4 11.0 12.0 11.4 14.8 8.3 -

B22 – Excluding duties that have emerged through the triennial valuation exercise, what percentage of your time would you say is spent on…? Mean calculations are based on all giving a figure

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only

Base: All with both DB and DC elements

265 61 100 104 0 127 28 1 0

DB specific issues - mean %

77% 80% 79% 73% - 83% 78% 90% -

DB specific issues - mean days per year

10.3 9.9 9.0 12.3 - 11.3 10.4 5.4 -

DC specific issues - mean %

15% 12% 14% 19% - 10% 16% 10% -

DC specific issues - mean days per year

2.3 2.0 1.4 3.5 - 1.6 1.7 0.6 -

Joint DB and DC issues mean %

7% 8% 6% 8% - 7% 7% 0% -

Joint DB and DC issues mean days per year

0.9 0.6 0.6 1.4 - 0.8 0.4 0.0 -


B24 – As far as you know, do any of your professional or corporate trustees have the following qualifications?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only

Base: All w/ professional or corporate trustees

395 127 127 141 96 74 16 66 142

A professional qualification related to pensions (eg PMI)

41% 33% 44% 48% 41% 44% 78% 46% 30%

A professional qualification related to finance or investments (eg CIMA, CFA)

56% 51% 51% 67% 56% 58% 45% 57% 55%

A degree or professional qualifications related to the practice of law

29% 20% 31% 40% 28% 34% 39% 38% 22%

A degree or professional qualifications related to actuarial science

22% 16% 27% 25% 21% 25% 32% 21% 19%

None of these 11% 18% 10% 4% 11% 10% 0% 1% 20%

Don’t know 8% 10% 8% 6% 14% 6% 6% 5% 6%

B23 – As far as you know, do any of your non-professional or lay trustees have the following qualifications?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only

Base: All w/ professional or corporate trustees

638 224 259 155 186 100 30 84 236

A professional qualification related to pensions (eg PMI)

9% 4% 11% 15% 7% 15% 4% 8% 9%

A professional qualification related to finance or investments (eg CIMA, CFA)

61% 52% 66% 70% 62% 66% 67% 68% 52%

A degree or professional qualifications related to the practice of law

15% 13% 14% 22% 16% 13% 22% 16% 13%

A degree or professional qualifications related to actuarial science

6% 3% 9% 7% 6% 12% 3% 4% 3%

None of these 30% 41% 25% 18% 27% 27% 32% 27% 39%

Don’t know 3% 2% 4% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 3%


B25 – Thinking specifically about your non-professional employer-appointed trustees, which of the following occupations are they in?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only

Base: All with non-professional employer-appointed trustees

563 198 228 137 164 86 24 74 214

Senior manager (code only included in pilot survey)

1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 0% 6% 0% 1%

Professional occupations 82% 79% 83% 86% 81% 83% 86% 84% 82%

Associate professional or technical occupations

21% 15% 23% 31% 26% 21% 24% 21% 13%

Skilled trades 10% 12% 9% 9% 11% 7% 3% 12% 12%

Other occupations 12% 11% 15% 12% 15% 11% 11% 14% 9%

Don’t know 1% 1% 0% 2% 1% 1% 0% 0% 2%

B26 – And can you confirm which senior management positions, if any, are undertaken by your non-professional employer-appointed trustee(s)?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


563 198 228 137 164 86 24 74 214

Managing director 27% 39% 23% 10% 32% 16% 25% 21% 32%

Finance director 30% 27% 38% 22% 29% 31% 33% 23% 35%

HR director 15% 10% 15% 25% 13% 13% 16% 18% 17%

Other director / senior manager

51% 48% 51% 57% 52% 50% 63% 52% 49%

Don’t know 2% 1% 1% 7% 2% 2% 0% 0% 3%

None 16% 17% 15% 15% 12% 25% 20% 17% 13%


B27 – Thinking specifically about your non-professional MNTs, which of the following occupations are they in?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only

Base: All with non-professional member-nominated trustees

518 139 227 152 159 93 26 82 156

Senior manager (code only included in pilot survey)

1% 0% 1% 2% 1% 0% 5% 0% 0%

Professional occupations 60% 56% 62% 61% 56% 63% 67% 57% 64%

Associate professional or technical occupations

30% 28% 30% 33% 28% 37% 23% 31% 28%

Skilled trades 13% 10% 14% 17% 15% 9% 9% 17% 13%

Other occupations 16% 14% 17% 17% 16% 17% 14% 15% 14%

Don’t know 3% 5% 3% 2% 5% 3% 0% 3% 1%

B28 – And can you confirm which senior management position, if any, are undertaken by your non-professional MNTs?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


518 139 227 152 159 93 26 82 156

Managing director 10% 13% 9% 7% 8% 11% 28% 11% 7%

Finance director 11% 12% 11% 8% 13% 6% 5% 14% 11%

HR director 4% 1% 5% 6% 2% 2% 0% 6% 9%

Other director / senior manager

41% 42% 40% 44% 42% 38% 39% 36% 49%

Don’t know 3% 4% 1% 7% 4% 2% 2% 3% 2%

None 39% 36% 43% 37% 40% 46% 41% 40% 32%


B29 – Have any of your non-professional or lay employer-appointed trustees been appointed in the past 12 months?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


563 198 228 137 164 86 24 74 214

Yes 18% 8% 22% 35% 14% 24% 26% 27% 15%

No 82% 92% 78% 65% 86% 76% 74% 73% 85%

Don’t know 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

B30 – Have any of your non-professional MNTs been appointed in the past 12 months?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


518 139 227 152 159 93 26 82 156

Yes 20% 11% 25% 24% 19% 18% 12% 18% 28%

No 79% 88% 74% 76% 79% 82% 88% 82% 72%

Don’t know 1% 2% 1% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0%


B31 – Please can you tell me what you believe were the main motivations of your newly appointed MNTs to become a trustee?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only

Base: All with newly appointed member-nominated trustees

114 14 61 39 31 18 4 16 45

Interested in pensions 49% 47% 44% 60% 39% 68% 43% 47% 50%

Generally willing to help the employer where they can

26% 15% 26% 34% 22% 20% 100% 44% 19%

Knowledgeable about pensions

15% 11% 17% 12% 16% 7% 0% 33% 11%

Wanted to represent members/look after members' interests

13% 7% 11% 21% 18% 0% 0% 10% 16%

They have a job with the employer which is relevant to being a trustee

11% 8% 13% 10% 17% 0% 38% 11% 8%

They were co-opted or volunteered by management

10% 16% 9% 10% 10% 5% 20% 22% 8%

They have time to take on this role

6% 0% 4% 15% 11% 0% 0% 6% 3%

Personal development/career progression

4% 0% 4% 6% 4% 0% 38% 0% 6%

Had previous experience/knowledge

4% 5% 3% 6% 4% 4% 0% 0% 7%

Re-appointed 3% 0% 5% 3% 5% 6% 0% 0% 2%

Recommended by previous trustee/employer

1% 0% 1% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4%

Other 7% 21% 5% 1% 9% 7% 0% 5% 7%

Don’t know 5% 10% 3% 4% 9% 3% 0% 0% 4%


B36 – Did any member-nominated appointments made in the past 12 months involve having more than one candidate for a single role?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


114 14 61 39 31 18 4 16 45

Yes 46% 15% 42% 79% 55% 57% 36% 27% 37%

No 54% 85% 58% 19% 45% 43% 64% 73% 61%

Don’t know 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2%

B37 – Which of the following selection processes did the scheme apply?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only

Base: All with >1 candidate for a single member-nominated role

56 2 24 30 16 10 2 7 21

A ballot 58% 100% 74% 32% 65% 66% 0% 11% 58%

Selection by member representative committees

10% 48% 0% 17% 3% 18% 0% 26% 11%

Selection by pension management committees

7% 0% 4% 13% 5% 0% 54% 12% 13%

Selection by trade unions

1% 0% 0% 2% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0%

Selection by existing trustees

31% 0% 26% 42% 35% 22% 0% 63% 24%

Other selection panels 11% 0% 4% 22% 0% 22% 46% 26% 15%

Don’t know 1% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 16% 0%


B32 – To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement? 'It was relatively easy to find a suitable candidate who was willing to become an MNT

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


114 14 61 39 31 18 4 16 45

Strongly agree 25% 29% 21% 32% 25% 28% 38% 27% 22%

Agree 48% 38% 48% 53% 55% 46% 17% 49% 40%

Disagree 20% 28% 21% 11% 7% 26% 46% 16% 35%

Strongly disagree 6% 6% 9% 2% 13% 0% 0% 7% 2%

Don’t know 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

B33 – Have any of your professional or corporate trustees been appointed in the past 12 months?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only

Base: All with professional or corporate trustees

395 127 127 141 96 74 16 66 142

Yes 12% 7% 15% 15% 11% 11% 0% 8% 17%

No 87% 92% 84% 85% 89% 89% 100% 92% 79%

Don’t know 1% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 3%


B34 – What were the main reasons for appointing a professional or corporate trustee in the past 12 months?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only

Base: All with newly appointed professional or corporate trustees

52 11 18 23 13 9 0 7 23

Previous professional trustee left and there was a need to find replacements

44% 44% 39% 48% 26% 44% - 21% 61%

Non-professional or lay trustees left and there was a need to find replacements

16% 28% 10% 15% 17% 18% - 13% 14%

Other reasons that scheme wanted more technical experience on the board

12% 20% 15% 2% 11% 14% - 7% 13%

Running pension schemes becoming more difficult / complex due to new regulations / legislation

7% 6% 6% 10% 6% 0% - 31% 5%

Business changes (e.g. mergers and acquisitions) meaning trustees needed technical support

5% 14% 0% 6% 5% 0% - 7% 7%

Trustee was appointed by the regulator

4% 0% 9% 0% 0% 0% - 16% 5%

Scheme changed status (eg open to closed, closed to frozen, frozen to winding up) and needed technical support

2% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0% - 0% 4%

Scheme decided to change rules and needed technical support

2% 0% 5% 0% 0% 12% - 0% 0%

Preference for third party 6% 11% 5% 3% 9% 12% - 0% 2%

Other reasons 13% 0% 14% 20% 31% 0% - 26% 4%

Don’t know 5% 0% 6% 7% 0% 12% - 0% 6%


4.3 Training and development

This section of the questionnaire was only asked to half the sample (Route A)

C1 – Firstly, does your scheme do any of the following?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only

Base: All respondents (Route A only)

410 153 157 100 111 64 15 57 161

Have a training plan in place for trustees?

45% 28% 55% 67% 43% 53% 49% 63% 35%

Keep a training log for its trustees?

59% 34% 74% 87% 62% 64% 70% 81% 40%

Neither 32% 57% 15% 5% 28% 21% 21% 17% 53%

Don’t know 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% 0% 0% 1% 2%

Net: Both (plan and log) 37% 20% 46% 61% 34% 38% 40% 62% 30%

C3 – In the last 12 months have the trustees documented or formally assessed the learning needs of some or all of the scheme’s trustees?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


410 153 157 100 111 64 15 57 161

Yes – some 13% 9% 15% 16% 20% 10% 0% 18% 4%

Yes – all 35% 18% 43% 62% 26% 37% 60% 60% 32%

No 49% 69% 38% 21% 51% 49% 40% 21% 59%

Don’t know 4% 4% 4% 2% 3% 5% 0% 2% 5%

C4 – Have any of the non-professional or lay trustees undertaken any formal, structured training during the last 12 months?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only

Base: All with non-professional trustees (Route A only)

314 103 138 73 87 53 14 44 114

Yes 50% 37% 54% 71% 52% 55% 84% 61% 32%

No 45% 61% 38% 25% 43% 37% 16% 35% 63%

Don’t know 5% 2% 8% 4% 4% 8% 0% 4% 5%


C5 – And did this include...?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


314 103 138 73 87 53 14 44 114

Introductory level training, ie basics for new trustees about their responsibilities

28% 19% 29% 46% 31% 31% 18% 28% 22%

Refresher courses for existing trustees about their responsibilities

33% 24% 33% 55% 39% 31% 51% 38% 22%

Advanced specific training ie for trustees who have had prior training and experience

27% 17% 30% 46% 27% 32% 55% 32% 19%

None of the above 3% 4% 2% 3% 0% 6% 21% 1% 1%

Don’t know 1% 0% 1% 2% 1% 0% 0% 3% 0%

Not received training 45% 61% 38% 25% 43% 37% 16% 35% 63%

Don’t know if received training

5% 2% 8% 4% 4% 8% 0% 4% 5%


C6 – Did they get this training from any of the following?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


314 103 138 73 87 53 14 44 114

The Regulator’s Trustee toolkit

36% 20% 42% 54% 34% 41% 42% 52% 26%

A legal adviser 20% 10% 21% 43% 20% 28% 27% 25% 12%

Internal/in-house training 19% 15% 16% 36% 18% 22% 36% 21% 13%

Accountants 13% 10% 14% 18% 17% 9% 17% 22% 6%

Adviser/administrator/actuary

16% 11% 16% 27% 19% 15% 25% 25% 6%

An Independent Financial Adviser (IFA)

12% 5% 16% 17% 12% 13% 7% 13% 9%

Auditors 8% 3% 10% 16% 7% 8% 20% 20% 3%

Other training from the regulator

9% 10% 8% 8% 12% 5% 14% 7% 6%

The National Association of Pension Funds (NAPF)

7% 0% 7% 22% 5% 7% 16% 10% 6%

The Pensions Management Institute (PMI)

4% 4% 3% 11% 6% 0% 20% 2% 4%

Consultants 4% 1% 6% 3% 3% 4% 4% 3% 6%

Third party organisation 4% 2% 5% 4% 6% 0% 0% 7% 2%

Conferences/seminars/courses

2% 1% 2% 4% 2% 0% 20% 2% 0%

The Trades Union Congress (TUC)

1% 0% 2% 1% 1% 2% 3% 0% 0%

Other advisers 1% 1% 0% 4% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Other 1% 2% 1% 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 1%

None 1% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 21% 0% 0%

Don’t know 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 0%



5% 2% 8% 4% 4% 8% 0% 4% 5%


C7 – As far as you know, which of these themes or issues were covered in the training?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


314 103 138 73 87 53 14 44 114

Pensions Investment 45% 28% 51% 66% 45% 55% 63% 54% 29%

The role of trustees 42% 28% 47% 61% 45% 41% 60% 53% 30%

DB Funding 38% 25% 43% 54% 45% 55% 55% 59% 0%

DB Regulations 34% 26% 35% 52% 44% 43% 55% 54% 0%

Pensions Administration 29% 20% 33% 42% 29% 30% 47% 39% 22%

DC Regulations 20% 8% 23% 44% 0% 28% 53% 50% 26%

Negotiation skills 7% 3% 8% 12% 7% 11% 0% 12% 2%

Pensions Law 1% 0% 0% 4% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Other 7% 3% 8% 12% 5% 8% 31% 3% 6%

None of the above 1% 3% 0% 0% 1% 0% 21% 0% 0%

Don’t know 1% 1% 1% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0%



5% 2% 8% 4% 4% 8% 0% 4% 5%

C9 – Have you or any of your board members used The Pensions Regulator’s Trustee toolkit?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


410 153 157 100 111 64 15 57 161

Yes 84% 75% 89% 96% 89% 86% 96% 98% 67%

No 13% 22% 7% 4% 8% 12% 4% 2% 28%

Don’t know 3% 3% 4% 1% 3% 2% 0% 0% 4%


C10 – Roughly how many board members have used the Trustee toolkit?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


410 153 157 100 111 64 15 57 161

0 13% 23% 7% 4% 8% 12% 4% 2% 28%

1 23% 30% 20% 9% 21% 25% 0% 24% 25%

2 16% 21% 11% 13% 15% 15% 26% 16% 16%

3 13% 12% 17% 8% 18% 11% 30% 11% 7%

4 11% 5% 17% 12% 15% 10% 20% 10% 4%

5 8% 2% 13% 13% 7% 10% 5% 11% 7%

6 4% 2% 4% 12% 4% 8% 3% 6% 2%

7 2% 0% 1% 7% 1% 2% 0% 6% 1%

8 2% 0% 0% 7% 2% 1% 0% 2% 2%

9 1% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 2% 6% 0%

10 1% 0% 1% 2% 0% 0% 2% 2% 1%

22 1% 0% 0% 3% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Don’t know 6% 5% 7% 5% 7% 7% 6% 4% 6%

Mean 2.7 1.6 2.9 5.1 3.0 2.7 3.4 3.7 1.8

C11 – The regulator issues codes of practice and guidance on <DB / DC> to assist trustees to carry out their duties. Please let me know if each of the following statements apply to you?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only

Base: All respondents classified as DB only / DC only / DB and DC (Route A only)

409 153 157 99 111 64 15 57 161

I am aware of the code(s) of practice

97% 95% 99% 100% 100% 98% 100% 100% 91%

I have read the code(s) of practice

84% 77% 87% 93% 86% 88% 91% 87% 75%

I have reviewed this scheme against the code(s) of practice

68% 61% 71% 82% 70% 67% 93% 76% 59%

None of the above 2% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 9%

Don't know 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0%


C11B – And have your advisers or professional advisers provided an overview of how the codes of practice impact your scheme?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only

Base: All respondents classified as DB only / DC only / DB and DC (Route A only)

409 153 157 99 111 64 15 57 161

Yes 74% 64% 76% 95% 76% 70% 87% 90% 66%

No 21% 27% 22% 5% 21% 28% 13% 10% 23%

Do not have any advisers/professional advisers

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

Don't know 2% 3% 1% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 2%

Not aware of the codes of practice

3% 5% 1% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 9%

C12 – What proportion of your non-professional or lay trustees have a level of knowledge and understanding that meets the standards set out in the TKU code? Would you say...?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


314 103 138 73 87 53 14 44 114

All of the board’s non-professional trustees

49% 38% 51% 69% 52% 49% 66% 57% 36%

At least half of them 24% 17% 31% 20% 20% 29% 21% 30% 24%

Fewer than half of them 6% 11% 3% 1% 6% 0% 0% 2% 12%

None of them 5% 9% 2% 2% 4% 3% 0% 0% 11%

Or are you not familiar with the TKU code

10% 17% 6% 3% 11% 1% 13% 5% 14%

Don’t know 7% 8% 8% 4% 6% 18% 0% 5% 4%


C13 – How does your scheme ensure that your non-professional or lay trustees are meeting the standards set out in the TKU code?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only

Base: All with trustees meeting TKU code standards (Route A only)

244 67 113 64 68 42 11 39 83

Ensure trustees receive relevant training & education from scheme’s providers, administrators

22% 32% 20% 11% 25% 24% 19% 15% 23%

Provide training, encourage resource use

21% 6% 28% 29% 21% 11% 0% 35% 20%

Review feedback, standards & changes in requirements regularly

18% 11% 21% 24% 17% 25% 32% 17% 14%

Monitor standards & review training system

18% 10% 21% 25% 25% 15% 19% 8% 17%

Regular performance reviews/assessments

9% 3% 10% 19% 8% 11% 22% 9% 7%

Liaise with 3rd party for advice/training/ assessment

9% 10% 9% 8% 9% 9% 0% 10% 11%

Ensure trustees refresh knowledge frequently

7% 5% 8% 7% 10% 4% 0% 10% 3%

Ensure relevant toolkit modules completed

6% 2% 6% 15% 8% 3% 8% 12% 4%

Ensure trustees able to demonstrate knowledge and understanding

4% 0% 5% 8% 4% 3% 0% 12% 2%

No formal process/trust them to do it themselves

4% 8% 3% 2% 1% 8% 0% 9% 6%

Ensure trustees obtain a professional qualification

1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 3% 3% 0% 0%

Ensure trustees have a working knowledge of all scheme documents

1% 2% 1% 1% 3% 0% 0% 0% 1%

Self-assessment 0% 0% 0% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1%

Ensure new trustees complete required learning within 6 months

0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0%

Other 6% 12% 3% 2% 0% 12% 28% 7% 5%

None/Not done this yet 2% 1% 3% 0% 2% 0% 5% 0% 4%

Don’t know 6% 13% 2% 2% 7% 0% 0% 2% 12%

Refused 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1%


C14 – To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: 'The training and development opportunities afforded to our lay or non-professional trustees is sufficient for the needs of our scheme'?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


314 103 138 73 87 53 14 44 114

Strongly agree 37% 31% 40% 42% 39% 40% 18% 45% 30%

Agree 55% 59% 51% 58% 53% 56% 77% 52% 54%

Disagree 6% 7% 7% 1% 6% 2% 5% 3% 11%

Don’t know 2% 3% 3% 0% 2% 2% 0% 0% 5%

C15 – What, if anything, would you describe as the main barriers to improving the level of training and development among your non-professional or lay trustees?'

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only

Base: All with insufficient training & development opportunities for non-professional trustees (Route A only)

18 8 9 1 5 1 1 1 10

Lack of time / work prioritisation

65% 67% 61% 100% 77% 0% 100% 0% 72%

Lack of knowledge of where to find appropriate training

19% 23% 16% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 23%

Lack of appropriate training or development resource

11% 6% 16% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 23%

Hard to keep up with the rate of change / knowledge required

10% 17% 0% 100% 23% 0% 0% 0% 4%

Lack of interest 7% 7% 7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 15%

Lack of finance / resource

6% 0% 11% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0%

Other 24% 17% 28% 100% 23% 0% 0% 100% 22%


4.4 Use and review of external advisors and other services

D1 – Aside from the scheme administrators, does the board of trustees use any external advisors or service providers?'

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


Yes 89% 81% 93% 99% 91% 98% 95% 97% 75%

No 10% 18% 6% 1% 8% 2% 5% 3% 23%

Don’t know 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2%

D2 – What types of external advisors and service providers are engaged by the board of trustees?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


Auditor 73% 62% 80% 86% 75% 90% 90% 91% 51%

Legal advisor 71% 53% 81% 91% 73% 92% 79% 85% 46%

Actuary 69% 56% 77% 85% 79% 89% 92% 93% 30%

Investment or fund manager (not simply the scheme insurer)

59% 46% 67% 73% 63% 73% 67% 75% 36%

Investment consultant 56% 41% 62% 79% 59% 71% 82% 62% 38%

Covenant Advisor 25% 13% 28% 47% 29% 37% 38% 32% 7%

Independent Financial Advisor (IFA)

21% 30% 16% 11% 23% 11% 13% 19% 26%

Benefit consultant (EBC) 18% 16% 18% 20% 18% 21% 13% 19% 16%

Advisor in corp. finance 8% 4% 9% 13% 9% 10% 10% 13% 3%

Other: Other external advisor/service provider

3% 2% 5% 5% 3% 4% 5% 4% 3%

Other: Pension specialist 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 3%

Other: Accountant 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0%

Net: Other 5% 4% 7% 6% 5% 5% 5% 5% 6%

No answer/none 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2%

Don’t know 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 5% 0% 1%

Do not use any external advisors

10% 18% 6% 1% 8% 2% 5% 3% 23%

Don't know if use any external advisors

1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2%


D2B – Focusing just on your AUDITOR, does this person or organisation also perform any of the other external advisory roles you’ve just mentioned? If so, which ones?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only

Base: All asked about their auditor

141 49 60 32 43 18 8 20 52

Legal advisor 1% 0% 2% 0% 0% 6% 0% 0% 0%

Actuary 1% 0% 2% 2% 0% 6% 0% 2% 0%


3% 4% 2% 0% 3% 6% 0% 0% 3%




3% 4% 2% 0% 3% 6% 0% 0% 3%

Advisor in corporate finance

2% 3% 2% 0% 3% 6% 0% 0% 0%

Covenant advisor 1% 0% 2% 4% 1% 6% 0% 0% 0%

No 91% 86% 95% 94% 94% 94% 100% 86% 85%

Don’t know 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

Not asked – pilot interview

2% 5% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 12% 0%

Only use auditor 2% 3% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 9%


D2B – Focusing just on your LEGAL ADVISOR, does this person or organisation also perform any of the other external advisory roles you’ve just mentioned? If so, which ones?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only

Base: All asked about their legal advisor

117 27 52 38 31 25 3 18 40

Auditor 3% 6% 2% 0% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Actuary 2% 4% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 4%


3% 9% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 4%




3% 9% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 4%


Any other external advisor

0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2%

No 79% 74% 80% 81% 77% 91% 71% 76% 71%

Don’t know 3% 2% 2% 7% 0% 0% 0% 14% 6%


3% 0% 2% 6% 5% 0% 29% 0% 0%

Only use legal advisor 8% 9% 8% 6% 10% 5% 0% 0% 12%


D2B – Focusing just on your ACTUARY, does this person or organisation also perform any of the other external advisory roles you’ve just mentioned? If so, which ones?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only

Base: All asked about their actuary

127 36 45 46 48 29 5 25 19

Auditor 1% 0% 3% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Legal advisor 3% 0% 8% 0% 4% 4% 13% 0% 0%


5% 4% 7% 5% 6% 4% 16% 4% 6%


Employee Benefit consultant (EBC)

1% 0% 2% 2% 0% 4% 0% 4% 0%



2% 4% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0%

No 73% 75% 68% 78% 77% 73% 70% 71% 57%

Don’t know 4% 0% 6% 6% 1% 5% 0% 2% 16%


2% 3% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 7% 0%

Only use actuary 3% 4% 2% 2% 5% 0% 0% 0% 5%


D2B – Focussing just on your INVESTMENT OR FUND MANAGER, does this person or organisation also perform any of the other external advisory roles you’ve just mentioned? If so, which ones?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only

Base: All asked about their investment or fund manager

92 31 29 32 22 19 6 19 25

Auditor 2% 4% 0% 2% 4% 0% 0% 0% 6%

Legal advisor 2% 4% 0% 2% 4% 0% 0% 0% 6%

Actuary 12% 9% 19% 5% 8% 14% 8% 14% 13%



2% 3% 0% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 8%


2% 4% 0% 2% 5% 3% 0% 0% 0%


No 76% 76% 70% 87% 81% 63% 92% 77% 75%

Don’t know 1% 0% 3% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0%


1% 0% 3% 0% 0% 6% 0% 0% 0%

Only use investment or fund manager

1% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0%


D2B – Focusing just on your INVESTMENT CONSULTANT, does this person or organisation also perform any of the other external advisory roles you’ve just mentioned? If so, which ones?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only

Base: All asked about their investment consultant

79 26 29 24 22 13 2 12 30

Auditor 5% 5% 0% 10% 8% 9% 0% 0% 0%

Legal advisor 2% 5% 2% 0% 0% 9% 0% 0% 2%

Actuary 17% 11% 18% 23% 10% 42% 0% 23% 7%


5% 9% 4% 0% 0% 25% 0% 0% 0%


4% 5% 6% 1% 0% 16% 0% 0% 4%


4% 10% 0% 0% 0% 9% 0% 0% 8%



1% 0% 4% 0% 0% 7% 0% 0% 0%

No 58% 58% 56% 60% 61% 37% 100% 60% 58%

Don’t know 5% 9% 4% 0% 0% 6% 0% 17% 5%


3% 4% 5% 0% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Only use investment consultant

7% 13% 0% 6% 8% 0% 0% 0% 16%


D2B – Focusing just on your EBC, does this person or organisation also perform any of the other external advisory roles you’ve just mentioned? If so, which ones?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only

Base: All asked about their EBC

28 11 10 7 5 5 1 4 13

Auditor 2% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5%

Legal advisor 3% 4% 5% 0% 7% 0% 0% 0% 5%

Actuary 24% 13% 34% 29% 0% 59% 0% 41% 14%


11% 4% 26% 0% 7% 28% 0% 0% 10%



6% 13% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 14%

No 49% 55% 56% 25% 56% 41% 0% 59% 48%


13% 10% 0% 39% 37% 0% 0% 0% 10%

D2B – Focusing just on your IFA, does this person or organisation also perform any of the other external advisory roles you’ve just mentioned? If so, which ones?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only

Base: All asked about their IFA

56 35 15 6 8 4 2 2 40

Auditor 7% 3% 19% 0% 18% 0% 0% 0% 6%

Legal advisor 4% 3% 7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6%

Actuary 7% 0% 22% 9% 18% 0% 47% 0% 4%


12% 6% 31% 0% 30% 0% 0% 0% 11%



4% 3% 7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6%



1% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2%

No 41% 44% 22% 91% 24% 78% 53% 100% 35%


3% 4% 0% 0% 0% 22% 0% 0% 0%


Only use IFA 35% 45% 22% 0% 13% 0% 0% 0% 51%

D2B – Focusing just on your ADVISOR IN CORPORATE FINANCE, does this person or organisation also perform any of the other external advisory roles you’ve just mentioned? If so, which ones?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only

Base: All asked about their advisor in corporate finance

11 2 5 4 3 3 1 2 2

Auditor 4% 0% 0% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 32%

Actuary 44% 58% 36% 46% 61% 32% 0% 75% 0%


37% 58% 63% 0% 100% 32% 0% 0% 0%



11% 58% 0% 0% 39% 0% 0% 0% 0%


6% 0% 15% 0% 21% 0% 0% 0% 0%


No 32% 42% 15% 44% 0% 33% 100% 25% 68%

D2B – Focusing just on your COVENANT ADVISOR, does this person or organisation also perform any of the other external advisory roles you’ve just mentioned? If so, which ones?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only

Base: All asked about their covenant advisor

32 6 14 12 11 7 1 4 9

Auditor 6% 7% 9% 0% 12% 0% 0% 0% 6%

Legal advisor 12% 26% 13% 0% 10% 0% 100% 0% 16%

Actuary 13% 24% 5% 18% 0% 0% 0% 42% 32%


8% 0% 5% 18% 0% 0% 0% 0% 32%



2% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10%

No 65% 33% 70% 82% 68% 85% 0% 58% 58%

Not asked – pilot 1% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4%



D5 – Which of the following statements best describes how often the trustee board agrees or disagrees with its <SELECTED ADVISOR>?'

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only

Base: All with external advisors/service providers

704 234 265 205 199 124 29 106 244

The board often disagrees with our <SELECTED ADVISOR>

1% 0% 2% 0% 1% 1% 0% 3% 0%

The board sometimes disagrees with our <SELECTED ADVISOR>

14% 9% 13% 22% 15% 14% 15% 16% 10%

The board rarely disagrees with our <SELECTED ADVISOR>

58% 50% 62% 68% 58% 66% 62% 58% 51%

The board never disagrees with our <SELECTED ADVISOR>

24% 36% 20% 9% 22% 16% 22% 23% 34%

Don’t know 3% 5% 3% 1% 4% 3% 2% 0% 5%

D6 – How frequently do you review your contract with your <SELECTED ADVISOR>?'

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only

Base: All asked about their auditor, actuary or investment/fund manager

360 116 134 110 113 66 19 64 96

At least once a year 36% 42% 37% 26% 43% 27% 23% 37% 38%

At least once every three years

38% 30% 38% 56% 36% 38% 35% 39% 40%

Less frequently than once every three years

15% 15% 18% 9% 11% 22% 35% 15% 11%

Never / we haven’t 4% 5% 3% 3% 4% 6% 0% 5% 1%

It varies 1% 0% 1% 3% 0% 0% 4% 2% 3%

Don’t know 5% 8% 3% 2% 5% 5% 3% 2% 6%

Do not have a contract 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1%


D7 – And how confident are you that you are receiving value for money from your <SELECTED ADVISOR>?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only

Base: All with external advisors/service providers

704 234 265 205 199 124 29 106 244

Very confident 40% 37% 44% 41% 37% 43% 26% 43% 43%

Confident 51% 49% 50% 57% 55% 51% 63% 49% 46%

Not confident 3% 5% 1% 1% 2% 3% 8% 3% 2%

Not at all confident 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Don’t know 5% 7% 5% 1% 4% 3% 2% 4% 8%

D8 – Why are you not confident that you are receiving value for money from your <SELECTED ADVISOR>, is it because...?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only

Base: All not confident of receiving value for money

19 13 4 2 7 4 1 2 5

The market or industry overall does not offer value for money

55% 54% 65% 50% 41% 62% 100% 67% 44%

You have reviewed your costs & charges and this suggests that they do not offer value for money

36% 32% 50% 50% 23% 68% 0% 100% 0%

You are unsure as you haven’t reviewed whether you are receiving value for money

8% 6% 16% 0% 13% 0% 0% 0% 15%

You don’t have the necessary knowledge or expertise to know whether you are receiving value for money

26% 33% 0% 0% 65% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Don’t know 7% 9% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 42%


D9 – Which of the following statements best describes your approach to appointing advisors?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


The scheme can afford to appoint advisers and will do so when it sees it as beneficial

63% 55% 64% 79% 67% 64% 59% 72% 54%

The scheme has to be selective in its appointment of advisors due to cost considerations

25% 24% 29% 18% 23% 31% 28% 20% 23%

The scheme can rarely afford to appoint advisors and only does so when absolutely necessary

7% 14% 3% 0% 6% 3% 12% 5% 12%

The scheme cannot afford to appoint advisors

2% 3% 1% 1% 2% 0% 2% 2% 3%

Don’t know 3% 4% 3% 1% 1% 2% 0% 1% 7%

D10 – We would like to find out a bit more about how the board manages its relationship with the administrator of the scheme. First of all do you have documented service standards in relation to your scheme?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


Yes 77% 63% 84% 93% 75% 85% 91% 93% 64%

No 17% 28% 10% 5% 19% 10% 8% 5% 26%

Don’t know 6% 8% 6% 2% 6% 4% 2% 2% 9%

Don’t know who is the main administrator

1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1%


D12 – How frequently do you receive formal reports on standards of administration (from the administrator)?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


At least monthly 6% 5% 5% 7% 7% 6% 4% 5% 5%

Quarterly 37% 13% 43% 78% 32% 45% 41% 43% 34%

6 monthly 14% 14% 16% 8% 14% 19% 16% 16% 8%

Annually 28% 44% 21% 4% 29% 18% 27% 29% 33%

Less often than yearly 4% 5% 5% 1% 4% 4% 10% 2% 4%

Never 6% 12% 3% 1% 6% 5% 0% 2% 11%

Don't know 5% 6% 6% 1% 8% 3% 2% 2% 4%

Don't know who is the main administrator

1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1%

D13 – How often does a representative from the administrator attend trustee meetings?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


At least monthly 3% 4% 2% 3% 3% 1% 5% 9% 1%

Quarterly 28% 10% 34% 57% 28% 31% 36% 37% 21%

6 monthly 22% 21% 29% 12% 24% 25% 22% 23% 16%

Annually 18% 20% 15% 19% 16% 17% 14% 20% 21%

Once every two or three years

4% 6% 3% 2% 6% 0% 14% 1% 5%

Less often than once every three years

0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 1%

Never/not at all 17% 30% 9% 4% 13% 17% 8% 8% 29%

Don't know 6% 7% 7% 2% 8% 7% 2% 2% 5%

Don't know who is the main administrator

1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1%


D18 – Do you have an investment management agreement for any aspects of your investments?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only

Base: All DB schemes or DC schemes where funds are selected through individual asset managers

551 177 215 159 222 127 29 109 63

Yes 71% 57% 74% 88% 65% 78% 75% 78% 57%

No 20% 33% 14% 6% 26% 12% 13% 14% 23%

Don’t know 10% 9% 12% 6% 9% 10% 12% 7% 20%

D19A – Have you reviewed your incumbent manager’s investment management agreement since you initially appointed them?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only

Base: All with an Investment Management Agreement

401 103 160 138 148 102 22 89 39

Yes 73% 73% 71% 78% 70% 67% 82% 84% 78%

No 23% 22% 27% 18% 25% 29% 16% 13% 18%

Don’t know 4% 5% 2% 4% 4% 4% 2% 3% 4%

D19B – When did you last review the incumbent manager’s investment management agreement?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only

Base: All with an Investment Management Agreement

401 103 160 138 148 102 22 89 39

In the last year 47% 48% 47% 44% 46% 39% 60% 56% 46%

In the last 2 years 15% 13% 12% 21% 13% 15% 11% 18% 18%

In the last 3 years 6% 5% 7% 7% 5% 9% 5% 4% 6%

Over 3 years ago 4% 5% 4% 3% 5% 3% 3% 4% 5%

Never/have not reviewed agreement

23% 22% 27% 19% 26% 29% 16% 13% 18%

Don't know 5% 7% 2% 7% 5% 5% 4% 4% 7%


D20 – Does the scheme employ any external providers for the purposes of fiduciary

management or implemented consulting?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


Yes 15% 13% 16% 19% 14% 14% 21% 21% 15%

No 79% 81% 77% 76% 81% 80% 71% 75% 77%

Don’t know 6% 5% 7% 6% 5% 6% 8% 4% 8%

D22 – Do any of your <platform providers/fund managers> insist upon the signing of non-disclosure or confidentiality agreements (for example, covering aspects of their service provision or the costs and charges associated with that service)?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


Yes 15% 11% 17% 20% 16% 15% 23% 20% 10%

No 71% 77% 69% 62% 71% 73% 67% 60% 75%

Don’t know 14% 12% 14% 18% 13% 12% 10% 20% 14%


4.5 Knowledge and skills

This section of the questionnaire was only asked to half the sample (Route B)

E1 – How would you rate the trustee board’s overall knowledge of the following...Pension scheme investments?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only

Base: All respondents (Route B only)

406 157 137 112 111 63 17 52 163

1 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

2 2% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6%

3 2% 3% 1% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 3%

4 2% 3% 2% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 2%

5 10% 16% 7% 3% 10% 3% 7% 9% 15%

6 10% 12% 12% 4% 11% 11% 17% 4% 12%

7 29% 28% 33% 24% 34% 33% 29% 26% 23%

8 28% 20% 29% 41% 26% 29% 36% 38% 23%

9 9% 5% 11% 15% 6% 20% 4% 15% 5%

10 5% 3% 4% 10% 2% 4% 6% 8% 7%

Don’t know/no opinion 2% 4% 1% 2% 3% 1% 0% 0% 4%

Mean 7.1 6.5 7.3 7.9 6.9 7.7 7.3 7.7 6.6


E1 – How would you rate the trustee board’s overall knowledge of the following...Pension scheme administration?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


406 157 137 112 111 63 17 52 163

1 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

2 1% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3%

3 1% 3% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 3%

4 2% 3% 1% 1% 2% 0% 6% 3% 2%

5 7% 10% 7% 3% 6% 5% 0% 7% 11%

6 12% 15% 10% 9% 15% 7% 11% 10% 12%

7 23% 23% 25% 23% 25% 31% 27% 20% 18%

8 31% 27% 30% 39% 31% 35% 34% 36% 25%

9 14% 7% 21% 18% 14% 15% 11% 13% 15%

10 7% 7% 7% 6% 4% 7% 10% 12% 6%


Mean 7.3 6.9 7.7 7.7 7.3 7.7 7.6 7.7 7.0

E1 – How would you rate the trustee board’s overall knowledge of the following... The roles and responsibilities of trustees?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


406 157 137 112 111 63 17 52 163

1 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

2 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

3 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

4 1% 2% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 3%

5 3% 4% 1% 2% 3% 1% 7% 0% 3%

6 8% 11% 8% 1% 9% 1% 4% 11% 10%

7 15% 18% 13% 13% 17% 12% 0% 6% 22%

8 27% 30% 22% 25% 32% 34% 36% 26% 15%

9 27% 15% 37% 37% 22% 32% 46% 28% 27%

10 17% 15% 17% 20% 14% 20% 6% 29% 13%


Mean 8.1 7.7 8.4 8.6 8.0 8.6 8.3 8.6 7.7


E1 – How would you rate the trustee board’s overall knowledge of the following... Pensions law?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


406 157 137 112 111 63 17 52 163

1 1% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 3%

2 3% 6% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 6%

3 3% 5% 3% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 6%

4 5% 6% 5% 0% 6% 3% 12% 3% 3%

5 18% 20% 16% 17% 25% 7% 31% 15% 16%

6 14% 14% 12% 16% 16% 14% 10% 17% 11%

7 25% 21% 27% 31% 21% 35% 8% 27% 25%

8 17% 15% 21% 17% 17% 24% 33% 13% 14%

9 6% 2% 9% 8% 7% 6% 6% 3% 6%

10 5% 3% 5% 9% 0% 11% 0% 15% 3%


Mean 6.5 5.8 6.8 7.1 6.2 7.3 6.4 6.9 6.0

E1 – How would you rate the trustee board’s overall knowledge of the following... Pension scheme wind ups?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


406 157 137 112 111 63 17 52 163

1 4% 6% 3% 1% 3% 2% 0% 2% 7%

2 3% 4% 3% 3% 2% 3% 2% 5% 5%

3 8% 11% 6% 7% 7% 3% 12% 14% 9%

4 14% 12% 14% 20% 17% 15% 16% 13% 12%

5 18% 14% 21% 20% 20% 23% 15% 11% 15%

6 12% 14% 11% 8% 16% 13% 0% 9% 9%

7 14% 15% 16% 9% 19% 8% 14% 18% 11%

8 9% 7% 10% 10% 9% 4% 34% 5% 10%

9 6% 7% 7% 2% 3% 15% 0% 1% 6%

10 6% 4% 7% 7% 1% 9% 6% 12% 6%


Mean 5.7 5.5 5.9 5.6 5.5 6.1 6.2 5.7 5.5


E1 – How would you rate the trustee board’s overall knowledge of the following... Recovery plans, contributions and funding principles?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only

Base: All DB schemes (Route B only)

240 78 82 80 111 63 14 52 0

3 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% -

4 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% -

5 3% 3% 3% 2% 5% 0% 0% 1% -

6 8% 12% 6% 2% 8% 9% 0% 6% -

7 18% 24% 19% 10% 23% 7% 40% 17% -

8 36% 30% 33% 50% 32% 44% 11% 42% -

9 22% 17% 30% 21% 21% 21% 41% 21% -

10 9% 8% 9% 13% 5% 15% 8% 13% -

Don’t know/no opinion 3% 5% 1% 3% 5% 3% 0% 0% -

Mean 8.0 7.6 8.1 8.3 7.7 8.2 8.2 8.2 -

E1 – How would you rate the trustee board’s overall knowledge of the following... Buy-ins, buy-outs and de-risking?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


240 78 82 80 111 63 14 52 0

1 1% 3% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 3% -

2 2% 4% 0% 1% 3% 1% 0% 0% -

3 2% 1% 4% 1% 3% 2% 3% 1% -

4 7% 7% 7% 4% 6% 6% 0% 10% -

5 14% 12% 17% 12% 18% 13% 3% 6% -

6 18% 20% 16% 18% 15% 17% 32% 24% -

7 22% 21% 25% 20% 28% 19% 29% 13% -

8 17% 18% 14% 21% 15% 17% 25% 21% -

9 6% 3% 7% 10% 3% 15% 0% 5% -

10 4% 0% 8% 6% 0% 4% 8% 14% -


Mean 6.5 6.1 6.6 7.0 6.1 6.8 7.0 6.9 -


E2 – Now please could you rate how important you feel it is for the trustee board to have knowledge of these areas...Pension scheme investments?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


406 157 137 112 111 63 17 52 163

1 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

2 1% 2% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 3%

3 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

4 1% 2% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 2%

5 5% 9% 2% 1% 6% 0% 6% 0% 8%

6 4% 7% 1% 0% 2% 1% 0% 0% 9%

7 21% 22% 28% 7% 29% 12% 29% 16% 17%

8 26% 24% 26% 30% 25% 30% 21% 30% 22%

9 20% 15% 23% 26% 18% 27% 32% 23% 15%

10 21% 17% 18% 35% 18% 30% 12% 31% 17%


Mean 8.1 7.6 8.2 8.9 7.9 8.7 8.1 8.7 7.6

E2 – Now please could you rate how important you feel it is for the trustee board to have knowledge of these areas...Pension scheme administration?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


406 157 137 112 111 63 17 52 163

1 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

2 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

3 1% 1% 2% 0% 0% 0% 11% 0% 2%

4 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%

5 6% 8% 4% 3% 5% 4% 13% 3% 7%

6 7% 8% 6% 5% 9% 1% 0% 12% 6%

7 22% 23% 24% 16% 25% 24% 13% 16% 20%

8 32% 31% 28% 38% 30% 37% 25% 32% 31%

9 14% 9% 16% 22% 16% 13% 17% 16% 12%

10 17% 17% 18% 15% 13% 21% 22% 21% 16%


Mean 7.9 7.7 7.9 8.2 7.8 8.2 7.5 8.1 7.7


E2 – Now please could you rate how important you feel it is for the trustee board to have knowledge of these areas...The roles and responsibilities of trustees?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


406 157 137 112 111 63 17 52 163

1 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

2 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

3 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

5 1% 2% 0% 1% 0% 0% 6% 0% 3%

6 2% 3% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 4%

7 9% 13% 7% 3% 10% 6% 18% 4% 9%

8 19% 20% 20% 15% 22% 15% 34% 13% 19%

9 25% 22% 26% 29% 28% 25% 28% 30% 18%

10 43% 36% 45% 53% 39% 54% 14% 52% 42%


Mean 8.9 8.6 9.1 9.3 8.9 9.3 8.2 9.3 8.6

E2 – Now please could you rate how important you feel it is for the trustee board to

have knowledge of these areas...Pensions law?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


406 157 137 112 111 63 17 52 163

1 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 9% 0% 1%

2 2% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5%

3 2% 2% 4% 1% 3% 0% 11% 1% 3%

4 2% 3% 2% 0% 2% 2% 0% 1% 4%

5 9% 10% 10% 7% 9% 2% 22% 14% 11%

6 16% 19% 14% 14% 23% 11% 2% 11% 15%

7 19% 20% 17% 17% 23% 24% 18% 15% 12%

8 24% 21% 26% 29% 19% 39% 26% 27% 21%

9 10% 5% 15% 13% 12% 10% 10% 10% 9%

10 13% 11% 11% 19% 9% 13% 3% 18% 16%


Mean 7.2 6.8 7.4 7.8 7.1 7.8 6.1 7.6 7.0



have knowledge of these areas...Pension scheme wind-ups?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


406 157 137 112 111 63 17 52 163

1 3% 3% 3% 2% 3% 1% 0% 2% 4%

2 3% 2% 2% 7% 0% 4% 2% 4% 5%

3 6% 4% 8% 8% 9% 8% 0% 4% 3%

4 7% 10% 6% 5% 9% 7% 12% 11% 4%

5 21% 23% 20% 19% 18% 19% 38% 27% 21%

6 15% 14% 18% 15% 14% 23% 11% 14% 13%

7 14% 10% 19% 16% 18% 14% 17% 12% 11%

8 13% 17% 12% 10% 17% 12% 18% 4% 13%

9 5% 5% 5% 3% 5% 4% 3% 3% 6%

10 7% 8% 4% 8% 3% 4% 0% 13% 11%


Mean 6.0 6.1 6.0 5.9 6.0 5.9 5.9 5.9 6.2


have knowledge of these areas...Recovery plans, contributions and funding

principles?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


240 78 82 80 111 63 14 52 0

3 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% -

4 1% 1% 1% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% -

5 6% 11% 2% 3% 7% 2% 7% 5% -

6 2% 4% 0% 1% 1% 3% 6% 0% -

7 16% 21% 19% 5% 20% 9% 22% 14% -

8 28% 22% 32% 31% 29% 25% 36% 26% -

9 23% 20% 28% 21% 22% 26% 20% 23% -

10 23% 17% 19% 38% 17% 32% 8% 28% -


Mean 8.3 7.9 8.4 8.8 8.0 8.7 7.8 8.5 -



have knowledge of these areas...Buy-ins, buy-outs and de-risking?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


240 78 82 80 111 63 14 52 0

1 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% -

2 2% 4% 0% 1% 3% 0% 3% 0% -

3 5% 3% 6% 5% 4% 9% 0% 2% -

4 4% 6% 3% 3% 4% 5% 9% 2% -

5 13% 21% 9% 5% 15% 4% 21% 16% -

6 17% 12% 25% 15% 14% 24% 5% 20% -

7 19% 15% 23% 21% 21% 23% 22% 10% -

8 23% 23% 20% 29% 25% 19% 23% 26% -

9 7% 4% 9% 9% 5% 6% 8% 11% -

10 5% 2% 5% 10% 3% 7% 8% 10% -


Mean 6.7 6.2 6.8 7.2 6.5 6.6 6.7 7.2 -

E3 – On a scale of one to ten, how would you rate the trustee board’s ability to...

Challenge investment advice or investment advisors?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


406 157 137 112 111 63 17 52 163

1 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

2 1% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2%

3 2% 3% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 3% 4%

4 2% 4% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 3%

5 8% 9% 11% 0% 3% 6% 18% 5% 13%

6 8% 12% 6% 2% 11% 11% 9% 4% 4%

7 16% 16% 15% 18% 14% 16% 9% 18% 18%

8 26% 22% 31% 27% 26% 31% 38% 23% 23%

9 18% 15% 15% 28% 24% 14% 14% 22% 12%

10 16% 10% 19% 22% 13% 21% 9% 25% 13%


Mean 7.7 7.2 7.8 8.5 7.9 8.0 7.5 8.1 7.1



Challenge other advice or advisors?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


406 157 137 112 111 63 17 52 163

1 1% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3%

2 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

3 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2%

4 1% 3% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 3%

5 5% 10% 3% 0% 2% 1% 7% 7% 11%

6 9% 11% 10% 2% 11% 8% 5% 3% 10%

7 20% 17% 25% 16% 21% 18% 28% 16% 20%

8 27% 24% 26% 35% 28% 34% 31% 27% 22%

9 18% 14% 17% 27% 22% 18% 22% 22% 10%

10 15% 13% 15% 19% 12% 21% 6% 25% 12%


Mean 7.8 7.3 7.9 8.5 7.9 8.2 7.7 8.3 7.1


Challenge administrators?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


406 157 137 112 111 63 17 52 163

1 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

2 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

3 1% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2%

4 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2%

5 7% 11% 5% 0% 4% 0% 18% 8% 11%

6 8% 10% 9% 1% 10% 5% 0% 6% 8%

7 14% 19% 10% 9% 13% 10% 15% 11% 17%

8 28% 22% 34% 31% 26% 41% 28% 27% 23%

9 20% 13% 21% 31% 27% 16% 32% 23% 10%

10 20% 16% 20% 26% 17% 28% 6% 25% 17%


Mean 8.0 7.5 8.2 8.7 8.2 8.5 7.8 8.3 7.4



Negotiate with employers on funding?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


240 78 82 80 111 63 14 52 0

5 2% 3% 3% 0% 3% 2% 0% 1% -

6 3% 3% 5% 0% 4% 3% 0% 2% -

7 8% 9% 11% 5% 5% 11% 9% 14% -

8 34% 33% 31% 39% 36% 29% 35% 32% -

9 22% 15% 28% 23% 18% 28% 47% 15% -

10 28% 32% 22% 29% 29% 25% 8% 33% -


Mean 8.6 8.6 8.4 8.8 8.6 8.6 8.5 8.6 -


Assess employer covenant?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


240 78 82 80 111 63 14 52 0

4 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% -

5 2% 4% 1% 0% 2% 1% 0% 3% -

6 3% 3% 2% 3% 2% 7% 0% 0% -

7 12% 16% 8% 10% 8% 13% 26% 15% -

8 31% 24% 37% 31% 31% 33% 26% 27% -

9 20% 13% 24% 24% 20% 19% 31% 18% -

10 30% 37% 26% 25% 34% 23% 16% 33% -


Mean 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.7 8.4 8.4 8.6 -



Assess value for money in administration costs and charges?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


406 157 137 112 111 63 17 52 163

1 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

2 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2%

3 1% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3%

4 1% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4%

5 7% 10% 4% 4% 7% 2% 23% 7% 7%

6 8% 11% 5% 7% 8% 8% 6% 3% 11%

7 22% 26% 19% 18% 25% 16% 28% 25% 19%

8 29% 24% 29% 39% 25% 45% 23% 25% 25%

9 15% 8% 19% 22% 17% 17% 7% 15% 12%

10 15% 13% 21% 8% 16% 12% 13% 26% 11%


Mean 7.7 7.3 8.1 7.9 7.9 8.0 7.3 8.1 7.2


Assess value for money in investment costs and charges?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


406 157 137 112 111 63 17 52 163

1 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

2 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2%

3 1% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3%

4 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 4%

5 6% 10% 4% 1% 6% 1% 22% 7% 6%

6 10% 13% 7% 10% 11% 8% 13% 9% 11%

7 23% 24% 23% 21% 25% 24% 19% 23% 20%

8 26% 24% 31% 25% 25% 38% 22% 20% 24%

9 14% 7% 16% 25% 19% 18% 10% 17% 7%

10 12% 10% 14% 13% 9% 10% 13% 24% 11%


Mean 7.6 7.1 7.9 8.0 7.7 7.9 7.3 8.0 7.1



Assess value for money in investment advisor costs?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


406 157 137 112 111 63 17 52 163

1 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

2 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

3 1% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4%

4 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 3%

5 6% 8% 7% 2% 5% 1% 8% 9% 9%

6 9% 12% 7% 4% 12% 6% 11% 9% 8%

7 25% 27% 21% 25% 29% 24% 38% 22% 20%

8 25% 20% 28% 34% 25% 39% 24% 23% 20%

9 14% 9% 21% 14% 16% 13% 9% 14% 13%

10 13% 10% 14% 17% 9% 16% 10% 22% 12%


Mean 7.6 7.2 7.9 8.0 7.5 8.1 7.5 7.9 7.3


Assess value for money in other advisor costs?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


406 157 137 112 111 63 17 52 163

1 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

2 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

3 1% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3%

4 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2%

5 7% 8% 6% 4% 8% 0% 2% 5% 11%

6 8% 11% 6% 7% 8% 8% 5% 10% 8%

7 25% 24% 27% 25% 27% 31% 53% 20% 19%

8 28% 26% 26% 36% 27% 33% 24% 35% 24%

9 11% 7% 14% 14% 14% 13% 0% 9% 9%

10 12% 9% 17% 11% 9% 12% 16% 20% 12%


Mean 7.6 7.2 7.9 7.9 7.6 7.9 7.6 7.9 7.2



Work effectively as a trustee board?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


406 157 137 112 111 63 17 52 163

1 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

2 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0%

3 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

4 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1%

5 2% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 7%

6 2% 4% 2% 0% 2% 0% 0% 3% 5%

7 8% 11% 7% 2% 8% 4% 11% 6% 10%

8 30% 33% 26% 29% 38% 30% 27% 18% 26%

9 25% 18% 32% 30% 23% 27% 46% 32% 22%

10 29% 23% 31% 36% 27% 37% 15% 41% 22%


Mean 8.6 8.3 8.8 8.9 8.6 8.9 8.7 9.0 8.2



have these abilities... Ability to challenge investment advice or investment

advisors?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


406 157 137 112 111 63 17 52 163

1 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

2 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

3 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2%

4 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2%

5 2% 5% 1% 0% 2% 0% 7% 1% 4%

6 3% 5% 2% 0% 2% 1% 0% 3% 5%

7 10% 10% 11% 7% 12% 4% 7% 6% 13%

8 32% 32% 33% 32% 37% 40% 43% 27% 24%

9 21% 17% 23% 23% 19% 26% 14% 28% 17%

10 27% 22% 27% 38% 25% 29% 28% 35% 25%


Mean 8.5 8.1 8.6 8.9 8.5 8.8 8.4 8.8 8.1



have these abilities... Ability to challenge other advice or advisors?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


406 157 137 112 111 63 17 52 163

1 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

2 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

3 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2%

4 1% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2%

5 1% 3% 1% 0% 1% 0% 7% 1% 2%

6 3% 5% 2% 0% 2% 0% 0% 4% 6%

7 12% 12% 14% 10% 14% 10% 7% 6% 14%

8 33% 32% 36% 30% 38% 35% 46% 34% 23%

9 20% 16% 22% 27% 16% 31% 11% 23% 19%

10 25% 23% 23% 33% 25% 24% 28% 32% 23%


Mean 8.4 8.2 8.5 8.8 8.5 8.7 8.4 8.7 8.1


have these abilities... Ability to challenge administrators?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


406 157 137 112 111 63 17 52 163

1 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

3 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

4 1% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3%

5 1% 2% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 4%

6 4% 7% 2% 1% 4% 0% 0% 6% 5%

7 14% 15% 15% 7% 13% 17% 12% 7% 15%

8 31% 26% 33% 38% 35% 37% 46% 28% 24%

9 18% 17% 18% 21% 20% 18% 14% 21% 16%

10 27% 24% 28% 33% 24% 29% 28% 37% 26%


Mean 8.4 8.2 8.5 8.8 8.5 8.6 8.6 8.7 8.1



have these abilities... Ability to negotiate with employers on funding?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


240 78 82 80 111 63 14 52 0

4 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% -

5 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% -

6 1% 1% 2% 0% 1% 2% 0% 2% -

7 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% 3% 5% 0% -

8 27% 34% 22% 21% 30% 21% 32% 24% -

9 28% 20% 34% 31% 28% 30% 28% 25% -

10 39% 37% 37% 44% 34% 43% 35% 46% -


Mean 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.2 9.0 9.1 8.9 9.1 -


have these abilities... Ability to assess employer covenant?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


240 78 82 80 111 63 14 52 0

4 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% -

5 1% 1% 1% 2% 0% 3% 9% 0% -

6 3% 5% 1% 1% 3% 4% 0% 0% -

7 4% 3% 5% 6% 3% 7% 15% 0% -

8 29% 30% 29% 27% 29% 29% 17% 32% -

9 24% 14% 35% 25% 26% 18% 36% 24% -

10 34% 38% 27% 37% 31% 37% 23% 40% -


Mean 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.9 8.8 8.7 8.4 9.0 -



have these abilities... Ability to assess value for money in administration costs

and charges?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


406 157 137 112 111 63 17 52 163

1 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

2 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

4 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

5 5% 7% 4% 1% 5% 0% 16% 1% 8%

6 5% 4% 8% 2% 4% 4% 0% 4% 6%

7 20% 23% 15% 20% 21% 21% 16% 18% 18%

8 31% 29% 34% 31% 37% 39% 34% 26% 22%

9 18% 15% 18% 23% 14% 15% 9% 26% 20%

10 19% 16% 19% 23% 16% 20% 21% 26% 18%


Mean 8.1 7.9 8.2 8.4 8.0 8.3 7.9 8.5 7.9


have these abilities... Ability to assess value for money in investment costs and

charges?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


406 157 137 112 111 63 17 52 163

1 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

2 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

4 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

5 3% 5% 3% 0% 3% 0% 0% 1% 6%

6 5% 8% 3% 5% 5% 3% 12% 8% 5%

7 19% 18% 19% 20% 21% 19% 14% 19% 16%

8 31% 31% 31% 29% 37% 43% 38% 17% 22%

9 17% 11% 20% 24% 13% 14% 9% 29% 19%

10 20% 19% 21% 23% 16% 20% 23% 26% 22%


Mean 8.2 7.9 8.3 8.4 8.1 8.3 8.2 8.4 8.0



have these abilities... Ability to assess value for money in investment advisor

costs?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


406 157 137 112 111 63 17 52 163

1 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

4 1% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2%

5 3% 5% 3% 0% 4% 0% 0% 1% 5%

6 6% 8% 3% 5% 4% 4% 21% 8% 5%

7 20% 21% 17% 24% 22% 22% 11% 15% 21%

8 31% 30% 36% 28% 34% 40% 31% 26% 25%

9 15% 10% 16% 21% 14% 14% 12% 23% 12%

10 19% 16% 21% 22% 16% 20% 21% 24% 19%


Mean 8.1 7.8 8.3 8.3 8.0 8.2 8.0 8.4 7.9


have these abilities... Ability to assess value for money in other advisor costs?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


406 157 137 112 111 63 17 52 163

1 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

3 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

4 1% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2%

5 5% 7% 4% 1% 8% 0% 7% 1% 5%

6 6% 8% 5% 3% 6% 2% 2% 13% 5%

7 20% 19% 17% 30% 17% 27% 25% 18% 21%

8 32% 29% 38% 27% 35% 36% 32% 26% 27%

9 14% 10% 16% 19% 12% 18% 9% 21% 11%

10 16% 15% 16% 20% 15% 15% 21% 19% 16%


Mean 7.9 7.7 8.1 8.2 7.9 8.2 8.0 8.1 7.8



have these abilities... Ability to work effectively as a trustee board?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


406 157 137 112 111 63 17 52 163

5 2% 3% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 5%

6 1% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3%

7 4% 6% 4% 0% 3% 0% 11% 0% 8%

8 18% 22% 12% 20% 17% 26% 14% 14% 17%

9 23% 21% 27% 17% 31% 19% 36% 16% 17%

10 50% 41% 54% 63% 45% 55% 39% 69% 45%


Mean 9.1 8.9 9.3 9.4 9.2 9.3 9.0 9.5 8.8


4.6 Policy

F1 – Has the scheme been reviewed against the regulator’s DC quality features?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only

Base: All DC schemes (including DB with DC AVC only)

593 212 214 167 0 127 32 109 324

Yes 52% 42% 53% 69% - 45% 60% 63% 51%

No 28% 35% 26% 20% - 43% 25% 25% 22%

I’m not aware of them 9% 11% 10% 4% - 6% 2% 5% 14%

Don’t know 11% 12% 11% 7% - 7% 13% 7% 14%

F2 – Did you use the regulator’s quality features ‘assessment tool’?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only

Base: All reviewed against DC quality features

333 91 119 123 0 62 19 75 177

Yes 60% 45% 63% 74% - 56% 83% 58% 61%

No 25% 37% 21% 15% - 33% 11% 24% 23%

I’m not aware of it 7% 11% 7% 2% - 1% 0% 9% 10%

Don’t know 8% 7% 8% 8% - 10% 6% 9% 7%

F3 – In the 2014 budget the government introduced new flexibilities with regards to

the retirement options available to DC members. How confident are you that the

trustee board is equipped to deal with the challenges, if any, that this may mean for

your scheme?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only

Base: All DC schemes (including DB with DC AVC only)

593 212 214 167 0 127 32 109 324

Very confident 47% 36% 50% 60% - 52% 38% 50% 42%

Confident 43% 48% 40% 37% - 42% 51% 36% 45%

Not very confident 6% 8% 6% 1% - 1% 0% 5% 10%

Not at all confident 0% 1% 0% 0% - 0% 0% 0% 1%

Don’t know 5% 7% 4% 1% - 5% 12% 9% 2%


F4 – The government has introduced new governance standards for DC schemes

that came into force from 1st April 2015. Which of the following statements best

describes how well-informed you consider yourself to be about these new

standards?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only

Base: All DC schemes (excluding DB with DC AVC only)

454 182 152 120 0 0 22 108 324

I am not aware of the new governance standards

3% 3% 2% 3% - - 0% 0% 4%

I have heard of them, but know nothing about them

11% 19% 4% 1% - - 0% 10% 12%

I know a little bit about them

29% 34% 34% 9% - - 25% 21% 33%

I know quite a lot about them

35% 27% 37% 49% - - 43% 37% 33%

I know a lot about them 17% 9% 17% 37% - - 14% 23% 15%

Don’t know 5% 7% 5% 1% - - 18% 8% 3%

F5 – Are you aware of the new 'default arrangement' definition that has been

introduced by the new charges regulations?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only

Base: All AE or qualifying DC schemes (exc. DB w/ DC AVCs)

254 61 94 99 0 0 13 70 171

Yes 54% 34% 51% 79% - - 62% 64% 48%

No 43% 64% 45% 20% - - 38% 33% 50%

Don’t know 2% 1% 4% 1% - - 0% 3% 2%


F7 – Are you aware of the requirement to produce a Statement of Investment

Principles in relation to any default arrangements?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


254 61 94 99 0 0 13 70 171

Yes 51% 26% 48% 79% - - 62% 56% 47%

No 3% 8% 2% 0% - - 0% 7% 1%

Not aware of new default arrangement definition

43% 64% 45% 20% - - 38% 33% 50%

Don't know if aware of new default arrangement definition

2% 1% 4% 1% - - 0% 3% 2%

F6 – Do you currently calculate and assess all member-borne charges and, to the

extent which they are available, transaction costs?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


254 61 94 99 0 0 13 70 171

Yes 63% 43% 64% 84% - - 72% 69% 59%

No 27% 50% 21% 10% - - 15% 19% 32%

Don’t know / not sure 10% 7% 16% 7% - - 13% 12% 9%

F8 – To what extent do you integrate the management of the following DB risks:

scheme funding, scheme investments and the employer covenant?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only

Base: All DB schemes 487 159 180 148 222 127 28 109 0

Fully integrated 66% 59% 69% 74% 66% 67% 58% 67% -

Integrated to some extent

25% 28% 25% 22% 26% 23% 38% 24% -

Not at all integrated 2% 4% 2% 0% 3% 1% 0% 3% -

Don’t know / not sure 7% 9% 5% 5% 6% 8% 4% 6% -


F9 – Thinking about how you manage DB funding, investment and covenant risks

between valuations, please could you tell me if each of the following apply to you?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


The investment strategy and funding plans are based on an updated view of the risk that can be backed by employer covenant

89% 79% 96% 94% 85% 90% 98% 93% -

The investment strategy and funding plans are set on the basis of a risk appetite which is agreed with the employer

82% 74% 86% 88% 79% 79% 100% 88% -

Funding and investment performance are monitored to defined tolerances

79% 67% 84% 89% 80% 78% 71% 77% -

There are clear plans for action when tolerances are breached or on some other trigger

66% 55% 73% 77% 64% 70% 58% 69% -

The approach to the management and monitoring of scheme funding and investment risk is documented

86% 80% 89% 93% 85% 83% 82% 95% -

Don't know / not sure 4% 7% 1% 2% 4% 5% 0% 3% -

F10 – In the past 3 years has the sponsoring employer(s) of your DB scheme

undergone any changes that might have significantly affected the value of the

sponsor covenant?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


Yes, definitely 19% 13% 17% 34% 20% 22% 9% 18% -

Yes, possibly 6% 4% 8% 5% 6% 3% 9% 8% -

No 72% 79% 74% 59% 72% 71% 81% 75% -



F11 – Did you review any aspect of your scheme funding, covenant, contingent

assets or contributions as a result of these changes?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only

Base: All where sponsoring employer has undergone significant changes

131 27 46 58 62 34 5 30 0

Yes 89% 74% 93% 97% 87% 92% 100% 90% -

No 9% 22% 7% 1% 11% 5% 0% 10% -


F12 – Which, if any, of the following external advisors supported you in your review?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only

Base: All reviewed scheme funding, covenant, contingent assets or contributions

119 20 43 56 55 31 5 28 0

Actuary 89% 92% 87% 89% 88% 84% 100% 96% -

Lawyer 69% 52% 66% 81% 62% 76% 93% 70% -

Covenant advisor 63% 32% 65% 79% 61% 58% 83% 68% -

Advisor in corporate finance

26% 16% 28% 31% 25% 22% 0% 39% -

Auditor 3% 8% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 14% -

Investment consultant 3% 4% 2% 4% 5% 3% 0% 0% -

Investment or fund manager

2% 0% 5% 1% 2% 0% 0% 6% -

Scheme administrator 2% 0% 4% 2% 1% 0% 0% 8% -

Legal advisor 1% 0% 2% 1% 1% 3% 0% 0% -

The Pensions Regulator 1% 0% 2% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% -


1% 0% 2% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% -

Any other external advisors

6% 5% 8% 4% 7% 5% 0% 6% -

None 2% 0% 0% 5% 0% 7% 0% 0% -



F14 – Are your scheme internal controls documented?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


Yes 81% 72% 85% 95% 87% 83% 92% 86% 71%

No 15% 24% 12% 3% 10% 15% 8% 11% 24%

Don’t know 3% 4% 3% 2% 3% 2% 0% 3% 5%

F15 – And do you have a formal process in place for identifying and recording risks,

such as a risk register?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


Yes 65% 44% 75% 91% 67% 76% 70% 73% 50%

No 13% 23% 6% 3% 17% 5% 14% 11% 14%

Don’t know 4% 5% 5% 0% 3% 2% 8% 2% 6%

Scheme internal controls not documented

15% 24% 12% 3% 10% 15% 8% 11% 24%

Don't know if scheme internal controls documented

3% 4% 3% 2% 3% 2% 0% 3% 5%


F16 – How often do you review the effectiveness of your scheme’s risk management

and internal control systems?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


A least every 6 months 26% 13% 32% 41% 26% 27% 30% 36% 19%

At least once a year 33% 27% 34% 42% 34% 40% 26% 31% 28%

At least once every three years

6% 4% 7% 6% 6% 9% 13% 3% 3%

Less frequently than once every three years

0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1%

It varies 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0%

Don’t know 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0%

No process for identifying risks or do not document internal controls

28% 47% 17% 7% 27% 20% 23% 22% 38%

Don’t know if process for identifying risks or document internal controls

7% 9% 8% 2% 6% 4% 8% 5% 11%

F17 – To what extent would you say your formal process for identifying and

recording risks has contributed to establishing new or revised internal controls?

Would you say it has…?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only

Base: All with formal risk identification process

545 129 224 192 155 100 26 86 176

Contributed significantly 17% 14% 15% 24% 17% 16% 12% 21% 18%

Contributed in some way 70% 71% 71% 68% 71% 73% 84% 65% 68%

Not contributed at all 10% 15% 11% 5% 10% 10% 4% 12% 11%

It varies 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2%

Don’t know 2% 1% 2% 2% 2% 1% 0% 2% 1%


4.7 Open-ended closure questions

This section of the questionnaire was only asked to half the sample (Route A)

G1 – What are the main issues facing you and the board of trustees regarding the

scheme’s overall governance, either now or in the future?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


410 153 157 100 111 64 15 57 161

Changing regulations/environment (economy, auto-enrolment, stock markets etc.)

29% 26% 30% 36% 24% 35% 37% 26% 34%

Funding 19% 18% 21% 19% 29% 17% 26% 19% 8%

Changing structure of business/scheme (eg closed, winding down, buyout, merger)

15% 17% 13% 16% 20% 14% 0% 8% 15%

Securing scheme future (ensuring staff are trained/knowledgeable, resolving covenant issues)

15% 9% 21% 15% 13% 24% 32% 16% 9%

Investment strategies, performances & liabilities (including getting most for money)

16% 15% 17% 14% 17% 12% 43% 22% 9%

Security of member interests & benefits

7% 7% 4% 14% 5% 3% 8% 7% 11%

Third party/external advisers/administrators

4% 7% 1% 3% 6% 1% 0% 6% 3%

Member communication & engagement

3% 3% 1% 4% 0% 0% 0% 4% 7%

Time 1% 0% 2% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1%

Assessment period 1% 0% 1% 6% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Ensuring scheme is running well & relevant

1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 2% 0% 0% 0%

Other 6% 3% 7% 8% 5% 11% 0% 1% 7%

None 8% 11% 7% 3% 7% 0% 7% 15% 11%

Not applicable 1% 2% 1% 0% 0% 4% 0% 0% 1%

Don’t know 5% 7% 4% 1% 4% 3% 4% 2% 8%

Refused 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0%


G2 – Thinking now about all pension schemes and not just <SCHEME NAME>, what

is the one thing you think should be done to raise the standard of all trustees?

Total


Small Med Large DB

only

DB w/ DC

AVCs

True hy-brid

DB w/ DC sec

DC only


410 153 157 100 111 64 15 57 161

Training, information and education (eg CPD, knowledge of pensions, legislation)

47% 47% 43% 53% 57% 42% 34% 43% 39%

Qualifications (including certificates and toolkit modules, TKU)

11% 8% 14% 10% 8% 16% 31% 9% 9%

Review/monitor training and recruitment processes/standards

10% 8% 11% 13% 14% 5% 12% 12% 7%

Clearer responsibilities and requirements

7% 8% 5% 9% 3% 12% 0% 13% 6%

Having an independent or professional board member

6% 3% 6% 11% 5% 5% 11% 5% 6%

Simplification of issues/processes

4% 6% 3% 3% 3% 5% 17% 3% 4%

External/third party advice/resources

3% 3% 3% 3% 6% 0% 0% 3% 2%

Making the role more attractive/flexible (easier workload, more time to do things)

3% 2% 2% 9% 5% 1% 3% 1% 2%

Assessments 2% 2% 2% 3% 0% 1% 8% 2% 5%

Having access to good quality, knowledgeable people

2% 1% 2% 0% 2% 4% 0% 1% 0%

Other 6% 8% 7% 1% 4% 8% 0% 6% 9%

None 4% 3% 6% 6% 2% 7% 0% 4% 6%

Don’t know 12% 15% 11% 8% 8% 13% 17% 10% 17%

Refused 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 3% 1%


5 Annex B: Sample analysis

Figure 5.1 below provides details of the number of sample records available for this

research, the number of unusable records and the number of interviews achieved.

Figure 5.1 Sample Analysis

Sample cleaning

Total records provided (individual schemes) 8,059

Removed as no phone number or duplicate contact, telephone, email, etc

1,631

Screening

Total records selected for survey 6,378

Contact details incorrect (wrong number, unobtainable number, etc)

334

Ineligible for interview (<12 members, wound up, not a trustee, etc)

652

Achieved interviews

Total usable sample 4,852

Interviews achieved 816

Documents

Trustee Landscape Quantitative Research - auto enrolment · Trustee Landscape Quantitative Research ... trustee boards and the role of training in enhancing board effectiveness. 1.2